Gay Army couple says chaplain barred them from marriage retreat
Your thoughts? Should Chaplains have the right to do this to soldiers?
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.
The gay community demands tolerance from everyone else, yet they make no such demands for themselves in respect to others. Even if there are a thousand laws on the books, I don't have to like you because you are gay. You have to EARN my respect in order to gain my friendship. The gay community wants to completely ignore that step because they have the "HATE" card in their hand.
What you fail to realize is that under DADT, many people were left out and put into positions in which they had to hide who they were in order to save their careers. Furthermore, many families were denied benefits that were due to them because of this law. DADT resulted in thousands of qualified personnel with certain skill sets being kicked out of the military during a time when we needed their skills the most. In some instances, these people were kicked out based on heresay and rumor. You're saying that you were okay with that, SGT Frank?
And there is no evidence of any "tolerance by force". What you seem to perceive as "forced tolerance" is nothing more than a certain group of people finally standing up and saying that they're not going to be treated as second class citizens anymore.
The more militant a group gets, the more they need Special Rules in order to bring them into the mainstream. I am sure that you will vote this comment down because no one is allowed to voice a negative opinion about this subject. Which has been the entire theme in this thread.
I know, First Amendment be damned. How Dare I.
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.
Rule of thumb: forcing someone to do something that is not necessary to the mission or well being is probably discrimination. Judicious use of common sense is required.
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
I know our units are fixing the issue and FORSCOM is working on a MOI. You cannot undo what has happened. As with any new policies they are not all implemented smoothly. This case in my mind is no different than any other policies the Army has implemented whether it was EO, SHARP, Hazing etc...
We still have issues and it takes awhile to implement change. I personally don't like those difficulties during change being exploited but it does bring to light the issue. Change is hard, but I for one think we do a pretty great job in the military adapting. I have seen tremendous progress in my years of service in all areas and we are still dealing with issues we have implemented and been working on for decades.
"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'.
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.
I have never seen, nor heard, nor smelled something that was so damn dangerous that it couldn't be talked about.
LT Hooser
I know, but I like it. This is the kind of things as Leaders that we must talk about and come to a agreement on how to fix the problem, as it is a problem that soldiers are being left out. It was just a story that was sent out in our daily news brief that our Public Affairs sends everyday. I am glad to see all the talk and I am seeing how the Leaders are reacting to this.
Old 1SG rant complete, I invite discussion.
We cannot suspend religion. We are talking about Chaplains. Religion is their job and permeates every work decision they make, and every work related thing they do.