Gay Army couple says chaplain barred them from marriage retreat

SSG Williams,

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 (Join to see) 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.

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

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.

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.       

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.