Gay Army couple says chaplain barred them from marriage retreat

SFC Rocky Gannon — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:21:42 -0500

Your thoughts? Should Chaplains have the right to do this to soldiers?

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131121/BENEFITS07/311210042/Gay-Army-couple-says-chaplain-barred-them-from-marriage-retreat

A same-sex couple at Fort Irwin, Calif., says they have been denied participation in an Army marriage enrichment program because of their sexual orientation, even though they are legally married.

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Nov 22 at 2013 9:22 AM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:22:48 -0500

I am not gay however I do support people in live their lives they way they want. If they want to go to a Army Sponsored event that the Army is paying for, then they have that right. Thoughts??

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2013 9:27 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:27:33 -0500

I believe the chaplain was wrong to do this. The chaplain should be able to separate their duty to God from their duty to the soldiers. Just like a Christian Chaplain is not supposed to tell Muslim soldiers their religion is wrong, A chaplain should not exclude a legal couple from an event such as this because of their religious beliefs.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Nov 22 at 2013 9:40 AM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:40:46 -0500

At this point why is being Gay even an issue anymore? I have a great deal of respect for anyone who is gay and served their country even before the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Going by the teachings I've had from my years as a Catholic, the idea of judging people based on their lifestyle choice is wrong. <i><a name="1">1</a></i> 
Judge not, that ye be not judged. comes from The Gospel According to St. Matthew. You don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle but at the same time you don't have to be a jerk to them. Even the new Pope has eased the Church's stance on homosexuality. In any deployment, I never cared about the religious beliefs, or orientation of the men in my unit, only that I could count on them if something went wrong. If this incident really did happen the gay couple should have been applauded for seeking to improve their relationship and attempting to be closer to God. <br>

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2013 9:44 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:44:50 -0500

What a shame. It's a shame for those Soldiers, it's a shame for the Strong Bonds event, and it's a shame for the Chaplain Corps.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2013 9:45 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:45:11 -0500

Yes they should, because each Chaplain is 'sanctioned' by a religious entity, be it the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, etc. If they act in a manor that appears contradictory to that organization they loose their sponsorship and are removed from military service.<br><br>It is a thin line the walk between service to God and service to the Military, especially when the two seem to be in conflict. <br><br>Perhaps a second Chaplain should have been brought in to conduct the classes for the same sex couples during the retreat. One who is sponsored by a denomination that supports same-sex marriage. <br><br>When we tell our chaplains to ignore their religious convictions, we make them useless to the people of faith they minister to.<br>

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Nov 22 at 2013 1:23 PM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:23:50 -0500

Would love to hear from some of our Chaplains in the Military on this subject, and how they would have handled this case??

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Nov 22 at 2013 1:24 PM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:24:36 -0500

Would love to hear from some of our Chaplains in the Military on this subject, and how they would have handled this case??

Response by SFC James Baber made Nov 22 at 2013 6:53 PM

SFC James Baber — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:53:09 -0500

While I don't believe in same sex marriages, I support equality of beliefs. I have seen many comments about the Chaplain being wrong, I feel he followed his belief, now if that is a violation of military policy that is for his superiors to decide not us in this forum. Would most of you ridicule or punish someone who refused to execute an order to punish a soldier for something you didn't feel that they should be punished for, a true leader would not follow that order and would work with the superior who gave it especially if it was in the heat of the moment as most likely this was when the couple applied for the retreat. I don't condone the refusal of letting them attend, but you also have to look at the bigger picture, would the couple attending have made the hetero couples uncomfortable, that needs to be considered as well. The Chaplain in question may have looked at the whole picture besides his beliefs, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt, there may be to the story than we know, we all know the media is famous for half-truths and not full reporting of sides of an issue.

I feel that it is an issue that needs further review from all here and from higher up as well before judgment is passed.

Response by SGT Gary Frank made Nov 22 at 2013 9:28 PM

SGT Gary Frank — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:28:41 -0500

SSG Williams,

Even though I am no longer in the service that does not mean what happens TO the service is inconsequential to me or this country. As I previously stated, The Military is designed to Fight and Win Wars, not be a petri dish for Social Experimentation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2013 10:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:22:10 -0500

Here is my opinion. 1. it is a form of discrimination because a marriage retreat has nothing to do with that chaplains religious beliefs. 2. like SSG Scott Williams said does a soldiers sexual orientation make them any less of a soldier? I mean just think about it in full.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 23 at 2013 2:04 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:04:41 -0500

If I'm not mistaken, is the Laugh Your Way To A Better Marriage series/Strong Bonds about understanding the differences between men and women and how to have a better marriage between the two? (Men and Women)

Remember the funny part about the mans brain and the woman's brain.

The point is whether you agree with it or not the program itself is not designed for gay couples. Am I going to file a complaint because I can't participate in pregnancy PT? It wasn't made for me. They don't hate me, they aren't designed to maliciously and hatefully keep me out...they are for a specific group of people to which the content applies.

Whether you support it or not, there are OBVIOUS differences and challenges between gay and straight marriages. That's why they have different designators. If they weren't then we would simply call them marriages and not same sex, etc. as most of you have done yourselves in this thread.

These programs were designed and instituted long before there was a such thing as gay marriage in this country. Instead of complaining, maybe they should advocate for something designed to meet their needs.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 23 at 2013 2:08 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:08:00 -0500

SSG Williams you are grossly misinterpreting those new testament passages. Under your interpretation all Christians should still be doing annual animal sacrifices and keeping the Sabath. Surely you don't think that is the case and obviously you are missing something which the LT is trying to point out to you.

And where do you get this knowing more than 95% of Christians? Is this your own poll you took or did you test your biblical knowledge against 100% of the rest of the millions of Christians? Or is that just something else you just simply made up?

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 23 at 2013 2:20 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:20:00 -0500

What would a straight couple be doing in a class teaching on the difficulties of raising a child in a same sex household?

Would you say that class is discriminating against straight couples, or does it just simply have nothing to do with them.

Stop turning everything into a complaint and the whole world is against me.

Response by PO3 Brenton Holbrook made Nov 23 at 2013 6:30 AM

PO3 Brenton Holbrook — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:30:48 -0500

While I believe that the Military is changing to a more diverse environment when it comes to Gay service members, yes they should have been allowed to go as long as they are legally married in one of the states that allows it and if their spouse is legally in the DEERS system. However, I would draw the line at forcing Chaplains to perform gay marriages as I saw on SSG Scott Williams' post. This is directly against the teachings of the church where they have taken an Oath to serve God and subsequently the Military by serving a Chaplain. It's the same thing as forcing a Physician to administer the drugs required to induce a Lethal Injection. It goes against their ethics, and the Hippocratic Oath they took when they graduated Medical School. This triggers some states to revoke their Medical License, then after 12 years of schooling they have no job. The EXACT same thing can happen to Chaplains, their respected faiths can what is called excommunicate them and "take their collar." The statement "take their collar," refers to the white collar Catholic Priests wear with their garments, which means they can no longer serve as a Leader of the Church and basically they are shunned. This is not fair whatsoever, so until the Church changes its stance on Gay Marriage (don't hold your breath) I completely agree with Chaplains refusing to preside over a gay marriage. In fact, there is one civilian pastor that is in the news right now who presided over his son's gay marriage and his faith found out about it. They are deliberating as to whether or not remove him from the pastor role or to just suspend him temporarily. I understand he loves his son, but in this case he also should have thought what would happen to himself.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2013 9:12 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:12:10 -0500

Before I get into the question at hand I would like to point out that the military has led our society in all civil rights issues of the 100 years. From desegregation, women serving alongside men, gay rights, to most recently allowing women to hold combat occupational specialties. Could you imagine what our society might look like had the Military not taken the lead to prove religious conservatives and biggots alike wrong. The world has not ended, and from my education(B.A. History) many societies have been waiting for the immenent Armageddon right around the corner for over a thousand years. Hopefully you have access to the news in the afterlife(if that what you believe in ), but if I was a betting man , that is something I wouldn't put my money on. From where I am sitting all these changes have only made our military a true institution of equality, and stronger in combat, and bond.

The following quote from our brother SGT Gary M. Franks state the obvious misunderstanding of what our military stands for and implies that one should discriminate or hold an unproffessional bias against someone who is willing to risk there lives for our country: "Our society has is encouraging Social and Personal Desires with Moral Values. This is not a commentary to Bash Gays, it is a statement that demonstrates that the Rights of One Group supersede the Rights of another. That is, Christians believe that the Act of Homosexuality is against God. Now we are being forced to accept it".

This is unacceptable and only creates room for others to interpret as a "green light" to hate/discriminate.

Let me remind you that the military is not an institution based on religion, but one based on a common set of morals and ethics(7 Army values for the Soldiers out there). Now where you gain your understanding and appreciation for said values is not an issue, just as long as you understand the organization in which you have joined. With that being said ALL people are aware of this prior to joining(Yes, this includes Chaplains). The military makes all efforts withing its regulations to accomodate religious practices and beliefs, up until it violates these regulations. You can't join and then later decide to violate the morals and ethics that you swore to abide by....Therefore, using a religious/personal belief to justify discrimination or hate is absurd. To simply put it if your religion/beliefs trump the obligation you have in the service to your country....Don't join.

Respectfully,

Jorge

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Nov 23 at 2013 12:57 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:57:21 -0500

Let us temporarily suspend religion from the discussion and focus on the bigger picture. The world has changed--we now have openly gay couples in the military community that do not need to hide their convictions. The chaplain corps has not changed with the times. One or the other must yield. If chaplains are sponsoring marriage retreats and are not willing by choice or are not able by beliefs to sponsor gays in marriage retreats then someone else needs to sponsor the retreats or we the military need to find chaplains who are willing and able to carry out their jobs in this new era where gay couples exist in the military. Does the chaplain have the right to turn away gay couples? According to his beliefs, yes. The Army wrote a regulation that contradicts his beliefs, so the chaplain needs to change his beliefs or change his job, but I doubt you can force him to accept gay couples. The military needs to adjust its chaplain corps accordingly, because religion is not necessarily going to change with the times just because the government has.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Nov 23 at 2013 12:57 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:57:25 -0500

Response by SSG Ronald Limbaugh made Nov 23 at 2013 2:03 PM

SSG Ronald Limbaugh — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:03:02 -0500

In reading the article, it seems that this Chaplain could have lost his religious sponsorship, had he allowed same-sex couples to attend. At this point in history, I think this is where the military needs to relook their stance on religious partnerships when it comes to Chaplains. The military needs to ensure that all are afforded the same opportunities. In that, there should be concessions made by these religious institutions, in order to allow some latitude for allowing equality, no matter the individual's orientation or faith. If a religious institution refuses to allow their chaplains to minister to any and all service members, then that institution should not be allowed an official presence. Eventually those service members that fall under that faith will either have to provide for themselves, or the institution will have to ease up restrictions concerning military chaplains if they wish to still have a part in ministering to those that follow them. This chaplain chose his faith over soldiers. I know it's a fine line to travel, since he's pretty much screwed ether way, but in this instance he should have allowed another chaplain to take over and recused himself from the issue. The retreat was, apparently, the Strong Bonds program.

"Strong Bonds is a unit-based, chaplain-led program which
assists commanders in building individual resiliency by strengthening
the Army Family. The core mission of the Strong Bonds program is to
increase individual Soldier and Family member readiness through
relationship education and skills training.

Strong Bonds is conducted in an offsite retreat format in order to
maximize the training effect. The retreat or “get away” provides a fun,
safe, and secure environment in which to address the impact of
relocations, deployments, and military lifestyle stressors."

-http://www.strongbonds.org/skins/strongbonds/home.aspx

Nowhere on the site for Strong Bonds does it specify that the retreat is for man-woman couples only. There are several different programs, such as Strong Bonds for single Soldiers, Strong Bonds for Couples and Strong Bonds for Families. None of which discriminate against same-sex couples (at least according to the website). I've seen a couple of other comments the state the retreat is focused on man-wife couples and the difficulties between the two in a relationship, but i cannot find any information that specifies it is meant for traditional couples only. It states that it is for married couples. The chaplain made a religious call that discriminated against service members that should have been afforded the opportunity to attend.

Welcome to Strong Bonds

This is the homepage of your site.

Response by SSG Bruce Durham made Nov 23 at 2013 3:16 PM

SSG Bruce Durham — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:16:05 -0500

Just because the Government makes it legal doesn't make it right.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2013 3:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:36:47 -0500

I've read some interesting things in these responses. I suppose I'd like to add my "2 cents". As an openly gay service member, I'm a little beside myself here. My personal convictions and my commitment to the Army and the Nation sometimes collide. I honestly believe that I put a uniform on every day to guarantee constitutional rights, defend the citizens of this country in times of unrest and war, and to defend the soil that makes up this awesome country of our's. While I'm a bit disappointed that this event happened the way that it did, I cannot find it in myself to fault the Chaplain for standing by his beliefs. Yes, I would love to see a nation and an Army where true equality for all citizens exists. However, I'm not so unrealistic in my hopes that I believe that change will occur "overnight". It took the Department of Defense decades to come to terms with homosexual service members serving in the military period. It took a forced repeal to allow open service. We cannot expect opinions and convictions to change in a year or two, this will take time. It will take time whether we feel it should or not and there really isn't anything anyone is going to do about it. Yes new regs could be published, and yes military members would be forced to ACT a certain way. But the bottom line is you cannot force anyone to change how they FEEL or THINK.<div><br></div><div>As much as many of you might hate it, I'm comfortable with the approach the military is taking. The effort is there. That is more than we could have asked for just a few very short years ago. Yes, I have hope that things will improve where this issue is concerned. Let's just remember that in order for things to improve, the problems must first surface, be discussed and analyzed, and then acted upon. Yes, this could have been handled differently. Perhaps a solution is to make each retreat have a pair of Chaplains with one being willing to counsel and minister to same sex couples. I am NOT AT ALL in favor of forcing the Chaplains to set aside the beliefs that I fight to protect for them. There are much better ways to solve this issue that will be good for everyone involved.</div><div><br></div><div>As for service men and women attacking other service men and women because of their beliefs, honestly the only thing I can say to you is stop doing that right now. It is possible to have an educated, mature discussion without attacking one another. It is unprofessional and shows a lack of the tolerance you claim to have and want to uphold. So stop, be professional, be respectful and be open. Those are the traits that you are asking for so do try to set the example by doing so yourself. Thanks for your time.</div>

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Nov 23 at 2013 4:05 PM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:05:12 -0500

LTC G, great comments and I agree the chaplains are in the bind here. However the story that I posted said the Chaplain told them they " “ineligible” because of their sexual orientation." Not asking for counseling, not asking them to marry them as they were already married. Those retreats and marriage seminars along with single soldier retreats are paid for by the DoD correct? And if I am reading what your saying is basically the Chaplain made the decision or someone in the chain made the decision to tell that soldier no, so they should be held accountable, is that not what your saying?

Response by SPC William Moran made Nov 23 at 2013 4:16 PM

SPC William Moran — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:16:28 -0500

and just because it is legal, doesn't mean that any religion is bound to endorse or accept it. This concept that one groups rights supersede another groups rights is malarkey......

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Nov 23 at 2013 4:31 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:31:59 -0500

The bottom line for me is that, yes, the Chaplains have the "right", in accordance with the laws and regulations they serve under to not counsel or participate in events with same-sex marriage couples.

Having said that, it seems clear that the military, being an organization that is inclusive of all marriages equally - including same-sex ones - must either find a way to place Chaplains who have faith that is contrary to the values and standards of military service (which now include equal acceptance of same-sex marriages) into places where their faith and service will not be put in opposition to each other, OR, thank them for their loyal service and dismiss them because their personal faith is no longer congruent with military regulations and standards.

We should not put Chaplains in a position that requires them to violate their faith; however, we also must ensure that military standards and values are upheld for all Servicemembers, equally.

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Nov 23 at 2013 6:12 PM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:12:51 -0500

Glad to see all the discussions here in the form. When I seen this yesterday and posted it I wanted to see how service members found the topic and it has been great. Would still like to here for the Chaplin's Corp on this and keep up the discussion.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2013 9:38 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:38:28 -0500

As a Chaplain Assistant you all will be happy to know that they are seriously considering getting rid of the Strong Bonds retreats because of these issues and many others. I think when the Strong Bonds came out it was to truly help Soldiers and their Families but now I think people have made it just to have a free Army paid vacation away from work and they don't try to help their Marriage. Statistically there has been no changes people are still ending their marriages.

Response by SGT James P. Davidson, MSM made Nov 24 at 2013 9:42 AM

SGT James P. Davidson, MSM — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:42:50 -0500

First point of order:

Uncle Sam, through the Pentagon, and in to our military ranks, has said that being homosexual is 'okay'. God did not.

The chaplain, therefore, violated MILITARY policy, not Scriptural instruction.

Second point of order:

A military chaplain is SUPPOSED to represent religious beliefs to the service members, offering faith support, not the UCMJ, though he falls under those rules, as well.

The chaplain, therefore, is attempting to do his job. He is not, after all, a social representative, but a religion (not religious) representative.

Third point of order:

My observations in my time in uniform is that the majority of military chaplains represent many faiths, some of which are contrary to the professed belief of the chaplains.

These chaplains, therefore, represent confusion. There are a few exceptions to this, as some chaplains adhere to their own faith.

Fourth point of order:

If this was indeed a military event, and said chaplain excluded them, he was wrong. If, however, it was a religious-based event, the chaplain has a better authoritative grasp on the situation, and followed his convictions.

Fifth and final point of order:

The comments contained in this thread demonstrate that the individuals who do not believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, et cetera, seem to be certain (within their own minds, anyway) that they know the Scriptures better than a person of faith, in pointing out 'what the Bible says and teaches', without knowing anything more than what is presented in the Book in word form. There is far more to the Bible than a 'front to back' read. There is far more to the Bible than simple one-line passages and verses.

Point of fact:

There are many 'Levitical Laws' that no longer apply (old testament - not the biblical listing, but the covenant that is the testament versus the new testament, or covenant), while some carried over and remain.

One cannot expect, however, an understanding by those who simply try to justify immorality by spouting and spewing as a defensive weapon 'what the Bible says'. To those I say:

Your argument is invalid.

Carry on.

Response by SGT James P. Davidson, MSM made Nov 24 at 2013 4:54 PM

SGT James P. Davidson, MSM — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:54:55 -0500

I found this statement to be extremely one-sided:

"When religious views and convictions provide disharmony within the ranks, then yes, leave them at the door when you join the service."

What, then, of non-religious views and convictions? What, then, of lifestyles and life choices in general, that "provide disharmony in the ranks"?

I had and have no problem with homosexuals in service, wearing the uniform with pride and a sense of duty and patriotism.

However, allowing 'open' or 'out of the closet' homosexuality within the ranks is something I've heard more voices against than for amongst my peers. It was many cases of 'I'd rather not know'.

The allowing of openly homosexual service members was nothing decided on "within the ranks".

Now, in a hypothetical world built on "what ifs", 'what if' the homosexuals serving openly provided the disharmony so one-sidedly aimed at religious beliefs? Do we blame the homosexuals? The 'powers that be' for forcing it upon the heterosexual majority?

Now:

What if the chaplain had been asked by those heterosexuals who planned on attending to 'disinvite' the homosexual couple because their presence may have "provided disharmony"?

What if someone opposing something is not always "discrimination", but plain and simple disagreement with it?

One point that is being missed, and it's the broadest side of the barn:

Rules, regulations, laws and so on, can no more persuade anyone to accept homosexuality as 'normal' than those same efforts could persuade anyone to stop being gay. It's a fact. You cannot legislate acceptance or tolerance, and you cannot legislate sexual preference or persuasion.

Common sense dictates that rules, regulations and laws are to be obeyed. They are not designed to be embraced and celebrated.

Final thought:

Was there a rule, regulation or law that required the chaplain to allow/permit/invite the homosexual couple? Was the chaplain obligated in any way to have them in attendance?

From a religious perspective, the chaplain (the religious representation) could not offer the two any real inspiration from the event, as two males cannot be husband and 'wife', nor can two females be 'husband' and wife, leaving the chaplain at a loss for how to teach them marriage 'enrichment', as it is (no matter what laws say) simply not 'normal' or 'natural'. It is 'accepted' by society, but until there is a far larger showing within the global population (averaging an over-estimated 10% statistically), it is simply 'abnormal'.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 7:52 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:52:42 -0500

DADT was revoked in 2010*2011 if I'm not mistaken. And at current moment the military is allowing LGBT couples in and offering them benefits, yes?? OK so this is a military rule/regulation which the military Chaplain should have to abide by. Unfortunately The military's system on RSO is different from the civilian sector, CHs I know, when faced with something they cant handle refer onto another CH that can. These were service members 1st and foremost, which is what the CH has to provide spiritual resource for regardless of anything else. If he allowed personal opinion and his disdain for their preference to determine, then by all accounts he is definitely breaking an EO reg and this will probably hit IG. The Chaplain doesn't have the right with the green suit to pick and chose who will attend, everyone in this green suit should be treated equally. IMO

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 8:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:30:56 -0500

What I am seeing a lot of in this thread, is that religious doctrine makes it okay to look down on or discriminate against certain groups of people and that we should respect that, because of beliefs...

Okay.....

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 25 at 2013 9:50 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:50:19 -0500

How come nobody is engaging against me? I'm feeling discriminated against.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 10:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:53:46 -0500

SFC Gannon,

Your post seems to have sparked some emotions in many service members.

I will refrain from getting into a religious discussion on what the Bible says to me since many of us interpret it in different ways. The way it speaks to someone may be totally different than the way it speaks to another. This is one reason why we have so many different denominations (I.E. do we sprinkle or submerge in order to baptize?)

One of the things I learned early in my career (back when there was an FM 22-100 and 101) was to never place a Soldier in an ethical/moral dilemma.

For example: "I don't care how you do it, just get it done private".

This statement has a significant possibility to place a Soldier into an ethical/moral dilemma.

Senior leaders in the military have an obligation to not put our Chaplains in an ethical/moral dilemma as well.

FM 1-05 states:

"1-12 As credentialed religious leaders, who are themselves guaranteed the free exercise of religion,chaplains cannot perform religious support contrary to their faith tradition, tenets, and beliefs."

Counseling by Chaplains, in my experience, tends to be faith based. To me a marriage retreat led by a Chaplain would be "religious support". This thought is supported when FM 1-05 1-17 Family-Life Ministry is placed under Religious Support Functions.

I would not expect a Christian Chaplain to perform a Wiccan Service for Soldiers in the unit with Wiccan beliefs. I would expect that the Soldiers of Wiccan belief had support to practice their faith similar to that of the Christian Soldiers that were supported by the Chaplain. I would apply this to a Marriage Retreat as well. I would not expect a Chaplain who did not believe in same sex marriages to lead a marriage retreat involving same sex couples. I would expect same sex couples to be afforded the opportunity for a marriage enrichment retreat as well.

Respectfully,

SFC Weems
Religion - Infantry
(If you are willing to watch my flank, you are my religious brother/sister.
In the event of my death: Birds got to eat same as worms - Just make sure my spouse gets the check.)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 6:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:33:34 -0500

Good. I think some restraints and some sense of normalcy should be applied here. I, for one, enjoy going on these retreats as long as they are kept for real marriages between two people of opposite sex. I would stop going if it were any other way though, not complain about it like a child. Hint, Hint!

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 8:19 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:19:52 -0500

Search thy selfe!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2013 8:22 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:22:59 -0500

<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15.390625px;">The bottom line here: The Strong Bonds Program (which is what we are discussing - please read the article cited in the original post) is NOT a religious program.  From the Strong Bonds website: "Strong Bonds programs are offered by Army Chaplains with the full support of your Commanding Officer.  You’ll gain practical, useful information based on world‑class curriculum developed from years of research.  In small groups, you’ll participate in activities that renew bonds with your peers. And, as a couple, you’ll practice communication and relationship‑building skills, as well as share intimate moments."  Check the whole site out for yourself: </span><a href="http://www.strongbonds.org/">http://www.strongbonds.org/</a>.  <div><br></div><div>I agree that the Army cannot mandate performing religious rites, (marriage, last rites, the sacrament, etc) which are under the purview of Chaplains' individual religious doctrines.  This is not at all what happened here.  This Chaplain barred participation in an event that is does not belong to him or his religious sponsor organization.  It belongs to the Army.  </div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I am a Jew and the child of an interracial couple that married in 1963.  I am very sensitive to all the little ways that people try to veil bigotry.  This is bigotry.  If a Chaplain cannot carry out his or her own basic duties because he/she disagrees with how the Army wants to run things, this is a volunteer Army and there's the door.  Goodbye and good riddance!  I do not restrict this view to Chaplains.  If you don't want women in your MOS or a homosexual Soldier in your platoon.  BYE!  These are not "social experiments," these are people; more than that, these are Soldiers, your bothers and sisters, looking to serve their country.  </div><div><br></div><div>Get over it...believe me, you will be a better person for it.  You will be a better leader.</div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.strongbonds.org/resources/common/clear.gif"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.strongbonds.org/">Welcome to Strong Bonds</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">This is the homepage of your site.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SGT James P. Davidson, MSM made Nov 26 at 2013 8:23 AM

SGT James P. Davidson, MSM — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:23:31 -0500

A response for CPT Michael K to this comment:

Or, there may be Christians who interpret scripture differently than you do, or whose traditions interpret scripture differently than you do. It's why denominations exist, and it's why people of faith can rationally disagree.

But I'm glad that you have all knowledge under the sun, and that I may carry on."

First, I appreciate your snide attitude. Very becoming of an Officer. It helps to demonstrate my point. Yes, I do contain, between my ears, an extremely vast knowledge of the Bible, denominations, Scriptural interpretations and things related. Thank you for recognizing that in so few words.

Secondly, yes, many DO interpret Scripture differently, thus creating different denominations. These denominations were designed by people who did not want to live according to how the Scriptures were written and intended, but still wanted to live under a form of Christianity. One version of the Bible (printed in the early 20th century) has completely omitted any and all references to homosexuality. Does that suddenly mean that God is okay with it?

A perfect example from the ten commandments:

The original texts read (as translated tot he most accurate English-language version, the KJV):

Exodus 20:

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The Catholic (Douay-Rheims) version reads:

3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The Catholic 'interpretation' is that we are not to have "strange" gods, where as the original texts (supported fully in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known works) say no "other" gods. The interpretation of the Catholic Church allows, then, for praying to Mary and other entities, as they are not "strange".

See the difference between "graven image" (KJV) and "graven thing", the difference between "bow down" (KJV) versus "adore", and so on.

Remember Martin Luther? He recognized this first. He is the reason Protestantism exists. It is for similar reasons to Catholicism that various denominations exist.

Further denominational differences based on varying interpretations:

Southern Baptists (not all, but most) believe that 'speaking in tongues' is satanic, while the Scriptures state no less than four times that 'tongues' is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals in their core beliefs, do not believe a person is, or can be, born again, UNLESS they speak in tongues, while the Bible clearly states that it is a gift not meant for all people, but given to 'some'.

Continuing from that example, the babbling noises we hear in many churches are not 'tongues' as the Bible describes it. The Bible is clear that 'tongues' is a spiritual gift that enables one to speak words that can be understood by those who do not speak the language the words are spoken in. This can all be found in Acts.

The swine, as a food, has been declared an "abomination" in the Scriptures. Again, referencing Acts, people have 'interpreted' Simon's dream as declaring that 'anything' can be eaten, though on two occasions, Simon declared that the dream made it clear that it was now permitted (ending a ban from God) to teach the gospel to people NOT of Jewish lineage.

So yes, people 'interpret' the Scriptures differently - especially when they do not study them, but take denominational teachings at face-value. I have been involved in Biblical study since 1981. I do have a head full of knowledge on the intricacies of the Book.

Regardless of how people 'interpret' Scriptures, they say what they say.

I stand by my comment, Good Sir. You are free to disagree with ME all day long. I know what the Scriptures say, on this topic, about homosexuality, and how God looks at it as far as what is written in the Bible. Interpretation by man does not change God's mind, opinion or thoughts regarding any subject.

So, as I said, picking bits and pieces of Scripture does not a truth make, but it does help form opinions, and sadly, that is the problem with 'denominations', 'traditions' and 'interpretations'.

That said, my comment was based not around denominational differences or interpretations, but of those trying to throw a single verse around as justification for a specific issue. Perhaps in your wisdom as an officer, you can re-read what I posted and understand what I wrote, and not 'interpret' it to mean what you thought it meant.

Please feel free to carry on a bit more. Please don't take me personally, but if the boot fits, Sir, lace that bitch up and wear it. ;)

Response by SGT James P. Davidson, MSM made Nov 26 at 2013 10:41 AM

SGT James P. Davidson, MSM — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:41:08 -0500

1LT Travis H.:

"I completely agree with the principle of your argument, however, "Southern Baptists" do not believe..."

Of this I am aware. It tends to be a 'regional' thing, though one is hard-pressed to find 'true' "Southern Baptists" outside of the south. As well - my comment did not include Southern Baptists as 'all-inclusive'. The ones I have experienced either in or from the 'back-woods' of the south, however, are firmly against it. The majority that I have met outside of that realm, however, 'are' Southern Baptist because that's what the sign in front of the church says... and tend to flow with many Protestant denominations in the acceptance of the babbling.

But we are off-topic. ;)

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 26 at 2013 11:09 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:09:21 -0500

FYI I am stationed at Fort Jackson where the Chaplain school is. Strong Bonds is religious based despite what is stated here. I've spoken to several of them about it just today.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Nov 26 at 2013 9:11 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:11:38 -0500

Sorry, but this is not an issue of MARRIAGE, but an issue of a service provided by the Chaplain's in the Military. I know from first hand experience as a member of the teams that worked CREDO Retreats for the Navy Chaplains at Norfolk, VA, that we served all people. We did not care about their sexual orientation, religious affiliation, branch of service, marital status (even for marriage retreats - if they were a couple), etc. Our job and the job of the Chaplain assigned to go out with the team for the weekend was to provide the service the participants expected. None of us had the right to or even the desire to reject any of the participants, our job was to guide and protect them as we guided them through THEIR experience; this was done with God's love, not prejudice or hiding behind and set of rules from any religious order.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Nov 27 at 2013 1:21 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:21:53 -0500

After a few days away from this discussion, I came back to see what others think. I'm a bit shocked at how some would use their faith to justify the exclusion of a portion of the military and society. I think when the founders of this great country put into words <i>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", they were stating a mission statement and a goal for us to eventually achieve. We must also look at the history of our country's involvement around the world to fight for freedom of those oppressed by evil governments around the world and even in part a Civil War in which blacks were no longer enslaved, and gained rights and citizenship that we're still working to fix to make sure they are treated as full equals. I cannot support treating any American let alone a person willing to serve this great country to be treated as a second class citizen or that because their love may not be traditional that they cannot be treated as equal as a conventional couple. If we expect other nations to treat their people in a fair and just manner, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to the same standard otherwise everything I have been taught and believe we stand for will be a great lie. <br></i>

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2013 2:19 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:19:48 -0500

This was initialy an issue where the right to attend a military function was dennied from eligible individuals, but we have turned it into a question of sexual choices and God's status on it. Not till lately, I thought that homosexuality is a sin but this was only because I grew up in a society where it viewed it as a set act and an abomination. I have taken time to read the Bible keeping away my acquired knowledge about the topic and found out that, it is God's purpose for mankind and a gift of freedom to many. Take time and talk to some of this individuals and u would be facinated about how much ignorance u may have been exercising. Compare statistics of the lenght of gay and heterosexual marriages, positively influencial personalities, the childhood of kids brought up by a gay couple against hetero sexuals; I mean, it is just a hand full of this gay couples but they have proudly adopted kids abandoned by heterosexual individuals. I know many gays who are best at their job both in the military and out there in the civilian sector. Despite the challenges most gay kids go through in schools, they still walk their way through the top. It seem to me that the issue with homosexuality is the challenges that aclaimed heterosexual face from this individuals as ethicacy and job performance is concern. It is so sad to say, but most of those who claime to be heterosexuals, have had, or still have sex with their wives, girl friends or boy friends annally and yet, find it wrong! Is it the sex or the fact that a guy and a guy (girl n girl) deeply loves each other the way that u can't?

There is a clear difference between doctrine and christianity. Most christians today go after doctrine rather reading the Bible and seeking understanding from God. If u quote the Bile as it is, then i tell u that there is everything wrong about life including going to war. That said to all of u who comdem homosexuality rather than lust which we all fall into, in our everyday life. Did u not also read the part whic say that if thou be without sin, he should be the first to cast the first stone? How there u judge this ppl and conclude upon their lives even when God hasn't. I am a charismatic presbyterian but many Presbyterians don't evn know what that means coz they still live in the age of doctrine. Call homosexuality a sin, genetic mutation, punishment or what ever but i will tell u this; it is not by choice that this guys and girls feel the way they do. It is a tremendous gift of life; healthy as much as a heterosexual can be. Can we talk about saving lives and fixing the disfunctional nature of most of our systems rather trying to perfect God's creations? Thanks.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2013 6:52 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:52:33 -0500

When I joined the Army the first time in 1986, gays were serving! I don't think most people realize that gays didn't just start serving when DADT was removed. They have ALWAYS been there and always will be. I personally don't care if they are gay or not. If they do their job and they don't make advances at me, I leave em alone. If they can't do their job, I don't care if they are gay or not, II just wanna find out why they can't and fix it. At least now without DADT you know who they are. As far as Chaplains not letting a gay couple attend a Marriage retreat, In my (total) 9 years of service (was out 19 yrs before rejoining) I have never seen it. In the years since DADT was removed I have had 5 or 6 gay couples. Mostly Soldier/Civilian couples. I have never seen any of them barred from a retreat.

Response by SSG David Gladu made Nov 27 at 2013 9:38 PM

SSG David Gladu — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:38:06 -0500

It seems to me that mortal conviction are beginning an outlawed concept because every one has the right to be an individual. And no one has a right to tell me what to do. I even heard that pedifiles have the right to do what they do getting back to the homosexuals a group was invited to the white house and had their pictures taken flipping the bird in front of paintings of Ragon and Bush this is a fine example of what they think of the United States the real under laying reason has nothing to do with military but the total destruction of any form of decency in all aspects of our life. As for the religion question it is all about attacting mortal principles

Response by CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. made Nov 27 at 2013 11:10 PM

CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 23:10:12 -0500

The basic responsibility of a Chaplain is to provide for the spiritual well-being of the members of the command. Every Chaplain does this, and there are systems in place to assist them in locating support when they cannot personnally give that support.

Should the Chaplain be forced to minister to homosexuals, absolutely not. This is espcially true if their sponsoring organization makes it clear they refuse to support this lifestyle.

Should the Chaplain have made efforts to include the couple AND locate a member of the clergy that could individually minister to this couple? Yes. Officers must assume a certain level of objectivity and combat our own biases so we can do our jobs.

Response by SSG David Gladu made Nov 28 at 2013 10:52 PM

SSG David Gladu — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:52:42 -0500

part of the problem is that Christians can not agree on anything from denomination to denomination or ever in their own convention, and Churches. Christians can sit in the same pew as others and not understand the same thing like strong drink. This speaks of not wine but something harder and we are warned against being filled with strong drink. But how many Christians have the stuff in their home and get drunk. There is to much confusion with in our ranks and the homosexual community is just using that confusion to push out God from all aspects of the American life and culture. As I said before this has nothing to really do with gays in the Military but everything to do with a sick and immoral agenda and cause a divide with in our selves. As for the other religious garbage posted here about slavery and other junk, is that real important to the conversation of Homosexuals in the Military? NO. I am willing to bet that most of the people that have posted that junk on here has the moral back bone of a worm with little or no moral guidance in their own life. This is a direct rebellion against God and we as a nation are allowing it to happen because no one wants to offend any one. Well just happen to make your way around a Homosexual rally and see what this agenda is really all about for certain would have a totally different out take of these people I say stand up to them and tell them all how sick their life style is and see what happens. You may even get some bleeding heat liberal organization (NAACP) calling for a reward for your death and some senator demanding for your arrest.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 29 at 2013 10:25 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:25:28 -0500

Im sorry but anyone who compares homosexuals to slavery is just completely ignorant to what slavery was. It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Nov 29 at 2013 5:45 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:45:24 -0500

I see a lot of interesting responses interspersed amongst the bickering on religion. My final thought on the original topic is that the military needs to figure out how to adapt to changing times. If this means adding non-religious counselors to the chaplain corps or having the chaplains maintain off-base services for gay couples, then it needs to happen. There are a lot of things that need to change, and it goes beyond whom is allowed to attend marriage retreats and singles retreats, and who sponsors these events.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Dec 1 at 2013 5:48 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 17:48:01 -0500

The more I read into this, the more I see that there are differences in programs being offered. Strong Bonds is a chaplain-led program that competes for funding from local Army unit commanders (ref: http://www.strongbonds.org/). CREDO and PREP are programs sponsored by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations through the Navy chaplains (ref: http://www.mccs29palms.com/pages/mfamservices/CREDO.html)(ref: http://www.mccshh.com/PREP.html). The Air Force does not have a service-wide program, but MarriageCare may be found at many installations.

The differences amongst these programs seems to depend on who is sponsoring the program. One cannot expect a chaplain to deviate from religious beliefs on gay marriage, unless there is top-down guidance on how chaplains are to handle those situations.

Did the Army chaplain have the right to bar gay couples from a Strong Bonds or similar retreat? Until the Army changes the rules, yes. Would a Navy chaplain have the right to bar gay couples from a CREDO or PREP retreat? Probably not. Note that I am not saying banning gay couples is right, but I am saying that until the rules change their military obligations towards gay couples, chaplains have the right to do what is allowed by their religious obligations. At some point in the future, DoD needs to address the issue service-wide. DoD could write joint regulations to cover these situations. Instead of operating these services through the chaplains, perhaps they could operate these as a joint venture between the chaplains and the installation services unit, e.g. Airman and Family Readiness Center for Air Force, Marine Corps Family Readiness, etc.

Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program

The mission of the Marine Corps Family Team Building Program at Henderson Hall is to provide programs and services to encourage personal growth and strengthen the family for continual readiness. These...

Marine Corps Community Services

CREDO's vision is to awaken service members and their families to the inherent personal and social strength available by living healthy, spiritual lives.

Welcome to Strong Bonds

This is the homepage of your site.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 5 at 2013 1:20 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:20:27 -0500

Here's an update to this case. Turns out that wasnt the case.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/22/2986341/military-chaplains-marriage-retreat/

Army Chaplains Deny Same-Sex Couple Participation In Military Base Marriage Retreat [UPDATED]

A same-sex couple was told they were "ineligible" to participate in a marriage retreat on the base where they're stationed because the chaplains organizing the program are not allowed to recognize the...

Response by CSM Stuart C. O'Black made Dec 8 at 2013 11:59 AM

CSM Stuart C. O'Black — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:59:14 -0500

No one will be denied access to SB events. but see more information below:

Again, each Chaplain is endorsed by a denomination (Catholic,
Methodist, Southern Baptist). As it stands currently in some units there are not chaplains' that can teach same sex couples in a Marriage retreat" setting. This
makes it essential to legally identify prior to the retreat that same sex
couples will attend and then find a Chaplain who can teach the material.

My unofficial understanding is the MOI for Strong Bonds is being staffed with
for updates and final publishing. When the MOI is published, there will be
a train-up period in which all UMTs (with exceptions for deployments
and other conflicts) will be trained in how to handle the integration of the
Same-gender couples into the program and also in how to adapt the training
material to support Same-gender couples when required.

In the interim, before the training is complete, they
are advised to do the following...

a. ID Chaplains who can perform SB events for Same-gender
couples and manage events for this population.

b. Explain to same-gender couples -

(1) Current Strong bonds curriculum has not been modified
to incorporate same-gender couple issues into the material.

(2) No one will be denied access to SB
events. But at this time, we are not
trained for the inclusion of same-gender couples

Response by SSG Martin Petersen made Dec 9 at 2013 11:18 PM

SSG Martin Petersen — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:18:30 -0500

I say if it was an Ecumenical class then no. If it was specific to a religion with those beliefs then yes. From what I read of the artical it was Ecumenical, in which case all should be welcomed.

Response by SSG Kenneth Hammes made Dec 14 at 2013 1:49 AM

SSG Kenneth Hammes — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 01:49:24 -0500

I know of same-sex couples participating in Strong Bonds retreats. I also know that it did not cause any problems, awkwardness, or any other issues. I know that this can be a "hot button issue" for a lot of folks, but chaplains have a duty to minister and care for service members. PERIOD.

Chaplains have an obligation to serve others of varied backgrounds and beliefs that differs greatly from ministry in civilian communities. If they feel they can only minister to those who believe exactly as they do, I don't feel it is appropriate for them to serve as a MILITARY chaplain. I may be mistaken, but I also believe that any organization authorized to sponsor a military chaplain is expected to understand this obligation.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 5 at 2014 2:35 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 02:35:10 -0500

They absolutely should not, it is not the governments job to decide who can go where based on sexuality. They are still soldiers, seamen etc.. first and they are PAID by a gov institution not by the church. Upholding military policy trumps their religious beliefs.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Jan 15 at 2014 12:44 AM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:44:31 -0500

This gay couple didn't really care about attending a primarily Christian retreat at odds with their secular humanist lifestyle. What they cared about was making a political point and firing sabot rounds at the commonly accepted Christian definition of the institution of marriage.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 8:49 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:49:32 -0500

Chaplains never deny atheist couples who got married at city hall, and the Bible condemns unbelievers as well.

It's a fine line, but I see unequal treatment here.

Response by SPC Davie Harvey made Feb 1 at 2014 10:14 AM

SPC Davie Harvey — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 10:14:55 -0500

Being a LGBT soldier, I can assure that my (personal) goal isn't to make a statement, or get media attention when injustice is served. I fully understand that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and what not int the military, but I also find it very hypocritical that the military stresses equality so much, but turns a blind eye to LGBT discrimination. (Not a blind eye, but are slow to respond) From PERSONAL experience with a similar situation to this... It to me escalating my complaint to IG before anything happened. Im not looking for anyone to accept my lifestyle... but my lifestyle has no affect on yours. Im not in your home sleeping with you, Im professional at work, and that should be that. This was a MARRIAGE retreat. If they were legally married, then they should have been able to go. Ive been to numerous Strong Bonds retreats and they help ALL COUPLES gay, straight, lesbian, green, alien... you name it... its good information. My personal belief is that if he felt so strongly about the situation he should have stepped down from heading the retreat. That would have alleviated everything... the couple would have been able to go under a different chaplain, and he wouldn't have forsaken his beliefs... It might not have sounded like the easiest thing to do but being a soldier, AND following ANY religion is hard. Sacrifices have to be made. But, since when do we refuse to aid need to soldiers because of their orientation, color, nationality etc.? If they signed up that was their way of saying they needed the teachings. Bottom line is this is going to be a circus, and its one of the reasons I feel like we should have kept DADT a little longer. (at least till we had regulation to cover things like this)

Response by TSgt Mari Quiroga made Feb 10 at 2014 11:47 AM

TSgt Mari Quiroga — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:47:44 -0500

My mom does lay ministry in a Lutheran Church, they are currently letting gay pastors into the church. Why drum up controversy if you don't have too, why not practice acceptance and let God be the judge. Maybe our Christian interpretation of gays is wrong, and we as people are not the ultimate deciders. Ultimately God is the final decider, so if they want to go and are inline with the teachings of the retreat by all means let them go. If they want to go and create havoc to prove a point then that's a different story.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 8:23 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:23:30 -0500

They should be allowed to attend just like any other couple. They are allowed to serve in the military. Therefor if they give a retreat paid for by the Army then they are welcome. If that Chaplain did indeed bar them from going he is in the wrong by military regulation for discrimination. And he should find his way out of the Army. Period. Its no different then him saying someone can't go cause they are black, white, Jewish, Muslim. If a PLT SGT/PLT LDR/1SG/CO told them they couldn't enjoy the 4 day weekend case they was a "GAY" then they would find them selves on the bad side of UMCJ a 15-6 Investigation etc. They have the same right as me or any other straight couple should.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2014 7:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:40:15 -0500

My thoughts are with the repeal of the DADT maybe the Strong Bonds Program needs to be an MWR Program instead of a Chaplain Program. As a soldier I believe all soldiers need to have the same opportunities, but as a Minister I side with the Chaplain as for as compromising religious beliefs.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 4:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:45:44 -0500

Whether anyone likes it or not, the Army recognizes marriages between gay couples as much as it recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. Barring a same-sex couple from a marriage retreat is a form of discrimination and should not have happened. I understand that it might have gone against the Chaplain's faith and personal beliefs, but he/she still needs to treat all Soldiers fairly. To me, barring the couple from the retreat on religious grounds would be no different than a Christian chaplain barring a Muslim couple, Jewish couple, etc.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 16 at 2014 9:48 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:48:03 -0400

Even though I disagree with the lifestyle.
Concerning this article then the Army should have found a chaplain that agrees with this couple.
Army sponsored=Army responsible
But the chaplain should not be asked to betray his beliefs for anything.
No a slight change: because of this whole issue I 100% believe that PDA should be enforced to the letter.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 16 at 2014 11:01 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:01:58 -0400

When you wear the Uniform you represent the USA and should be bound by those standards but as a Chaplain they are bound by their Faith and they have to stay true to those standards and yes there is a chance of conflict of interest. I can see something like this going to court for Judicial Review. If it was under the umbrella of the Military legally and morally they should not have been excluded.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Apr 30 at 2014 2:33 PM

MSG Floyd Williams — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:33:01 -0400

I won't support it or go against it, that is between them and God.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2014 1:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:54:57 -0400

I keep seeing "Yes, because the gay couple should not be discriminated against!"

While I agree that they should not be discriminated against, I also think that there should be provisions made to avoid this scenario. Should Rabbi and Muslim Chaplains be forced to serve pork so as to not discriminate against those who do? Should Atheist service members be forced to say prayers during services so as to not discriminate against the service members who do pray? Religion pretty much demands discrimination, which is why workarounds must be found; namely what CPT Private RallyPoint Member said: "Perhaps a second Chaplain should have been brought in to conduct the classes for the same sex couples during the retreat. One who is sponsored by a denomination that supports same-sex marriage. "

That solves the problem of the same sex couple being barred, and allows the Chaplain to stay true to his religion so he does not get dismissed from his faith and barred or however it is that they would do such a thing.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Jul 28 at 2014 10:56 PM

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:56:41 -0400

While I have the personal belief "to each his own". I do not believe a chaplain should be force to accept something his/her religion believes is wrong as acceptable. They should not be forced to help strengthen a relationship/marriage they believe to be a sin. I was not aware that the military recognized the marriage of a gay couple as legal. I know that by state laws it is legal. Are these couples getting spousal benefits, housing, medical? I guess that's my question. Does the military even considerer them married? I'm not asking if the military should or should not consider it a legal marriage. Just a do or don't they.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 6:25 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:25:42 -0500

Everyone in the military swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th Amendment. This means the Federal government, to include the military, must recognize same-sex marriages. Because a chaplain is also a member of the military, a chaplain must recognize same-sex marriages on the basis of the 14th Amendment. However, if a religious organization or church denomination does not support the Supreme Court's decision, the religious organization or church denomination can recall their military chaplains from the Armed Services. While we may not agree with the Federal government policies, we all took the same oath and we have a duty to support and defend the Constitution.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 6:26 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:26:58 -0500

I don't know what saddens me more, the article itself or some comments under this discussion...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 12:29 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:29:58 -0500

Frankly i cant say much about the article other than it is one-sided. Its hard to have a valid point when you victimize the world. But, frankly, our society not as a whole mind you has turned a blind eye to real freedom when they fear defending their own convictions. I am personally christian non denomination so therefore i believe two aspects on this subject: 1) homosexulality of any nature is wrong (and just plain gross; sorry) and 2) people in this world regardless of what they do and believe deserve "respect" (Dont matter if you're gay or straight or whatever). Heaven and Hell aside, enforcing change or a double standard for that matter is also wrong. Change comes with time and usually should be benefitial to both parties. I also believe that if you do make a choice in life then you should stick by it and accept whatever positive or negative effects that come with it; not force an entire society to accept it. That's not how society works. There are acceptable and inacceptable norms in any society, but what pur society is losing sight of is the word "tollerance", which is not the same as what we're panning off today, which would be "acceptance". You dont need to accept things you dont like in society, merely tolerate them. And if someone supports their faith in our society, they should be tolerated as much as a person for their choice in sexual lifestyle. But no one needs to be coddled or "supported" we're all adult men and women and there are laws in place to protect us and are also capable of fighting our own fights as well. The struggle isnt REAL people its all in what we tell ourselves.