The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles
Title: Pentagon Urged To Boot Chaplains Who Oppose 'Gay' Marriage
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/July02/024.html
Published: Jul 3, 2015
Author: July 02, 2015 | JACK MINOR
Post Date: 2015-07-03 23:06:14 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 25160
Comments: 118
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage in all 50 states, the Pentagon is now being urged to “cleanse itself” of chaplains who refuse to support same-sex marriage. Activist Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is demanding the U.S. military conduct a purge of chaplains who holds to the traditional teaching of homosexuality and marriage espoused by the first commander in chief, George Washington. Weinstein claims chaplains who are “maintaining the state of antagonism between their religion and the sexual/gender identities of service members” have no business serving in the military. “Nobody is arguing that these losers don’t have a right to their religious beliefs,” wrote Weinstein in an op-ed. “At this stage, the only honorable thing that these losers can do is to fold up their uniforms, turn in their papers, and get the hell out of the American military chaplaincy. If they are unwilling or too cowardly to do so, then the Department of Defense must expeditiously cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.” While Weinstein frequently calls for the court-martialing of military members who attempt to share their faith with others, he is now calling for an entire class of chaplains to be fired regardless of whether their beliefs affect their job performance or not. Brig. Gen. Doug Lee, now chairman of the executive committee for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said Weinstein’s views are extreme, showing a lack of understanding of a chaplain’s mission. “His comments are so vitriolic and dividing that they are hardly worth responding to. He seems to feel the need to push his conspiracy theory about certain chaplains in the military,” Lee told WND. “In addition, I don’t think he understands that the job of chaplain exists in a pluralistic military so that people have religious support, and to do away with a certain group of chaplains in its entirety is just ridiculous. “It’s like he never learned a thing in law school about the Constitution and about why chaplains exist.” Lee contends one cannot say chaplains have no right to oppose homosexuality based on the teachings of their faith while also supporting their right to stand by other tenets, such as refusing to marry those outside of their faith. “A chaplain cannot do something against his faith tenet such as marrying someone who has different religious beliefs if that is a tenet of their faith. They cannot be asked to do it, and they cannot be required to do it.” Lee told WND that those who think a chaplain must affirm or support the beliefs of everyone who comes for counseling or teaching misunderstand the purpose of chaplains. “The job of a chaplain is to provide religious support or perform religious support. The ‘provide’ part is to help a person find someone who can meet the individual’s spiritual needs. For example, I would not prepare a Passover meal for a Jewish service member, but I will direct them to a rabbi who can address that area. But when I do perform religious support, whether it be to teach, preach or counsel, I do so from my faith perspective.” For his part, Weinstein said he’s looking forward to ending the conservative influence in the military. “What will become of their once-ironclad dominance of fundamentalist Christian privilege within the Department of Defense?” said Weinstein. Lee insists chaplains don’t use their pulpit and position to call on service members to disobey orders regarding the treatment of “gay” service members. “For the vast majority of chaplains in the military, their faith groups believe that homosexuality is a sin and so they believe marriage is between a man and a woman as Christians have believed for thousands of years,” Lee explained to WND. “But the chaplains are saying that if someone comes to them for counseling with the homosexual partner they won’t ignore that person’s concerns, instead they will refer them to someone who can help with their specific needs because that’s part of providing religious support.” WND reported how the military tried to silence opposition to repeal of the Revolutionary War ban on homosexuals serving in the military during a lame-duck session of Congress, after tea-party voters gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives in 2010. In 2013, soldiers were given a training brief stating evangelical Christians were the No. 1 extremist threat to America, ahead of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Ku Klux Klan, Nation of Islam, al-Qaida and Hamas. Catholicism and ultra-orthodox Judaism were also on the list of religious extremist organizations. As WND reported, Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told the Washington Post in 2013 the biggest problems faced by the military were sexual assault and what he described as proselytizing by Christians. Wilkerson’s comments were made to Sally Quinn in an interview that also featured former ambassador Joe Wilson and Weinstein as they were on their way to a meeting at the Pentagon. Wilson told Quinn that if a chaplain would proselytize, it would be a workplace violation. Weinstein went even further and said it was a “national security threat” and amounted to “spiritual rape.” He said the chaplain’s role is to minister to spiritual needs. Weinstein said military leaders need to understand “there is systematic misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the military.” “What the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.” Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/July02/024.html#rAB6z7mffBjuVXm4.99
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-21) not displayed.
.
.
.
#22. To: sneakypete (#21)
Freedom of gives an option. Freedom from is exclusive. Types like Weinstein want all religious activity expunged from public life. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
I disagree because freedom from is also an option. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The intent and language can't be any clearer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
HUH?? There has been no, ZERO, zip cases challenged in any U.S. courts which back up your ludicrous azz-backwards theory.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yeah,that's why nobody disagrees about it,huh? Including you and I. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HUH?? There has been no, ZERO, zip cases challenged in any U.S. courts which back up your ludicrous azz-backwards theory. I know this is personal for you,but that is no reason to have your head stuck up your ass about it. Or do you really think my only concern is US court cases,instead of comparing our system to the systems used all over the world where some of them have state religions and you can have your freaking head cut off for worshiping the same God "wrong"? Freedom OF religion also CLEARLY means freedom FROM religion because it bars the state from forcing us to adopt a state religion. We have a choice to worship how and who we choose,or even to not worship at all. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Or do you really think my only concern is US court cases,instead of comparing our system to the systems used all over the world where some of them have state religions and you can have your freaking head cut off for worshiping the same God "wrong"? You're projecting, because this case IS personal...FOR YOU. I get it -- when you were a kid, your relatives didn't give YOU the freedom of OR "from" religion. You were assigned a religion while in the Army without your concent; Maybe a CO tried to coerce you into "Gawd." Your anecdotal cases still don't rise to the federal case you're making it out to be or change the Founders' intent or meaning. Most of all, I'm sorry it ruined faith for you, that you've allowed these instances to alienate you from God. The 1st Amendment and writings of the Founders is crystal clear on the matter of freedom OF religion. It has nothing to do with you citing several irrelevant tangential red herrings.
NOBODY but Leftists, militant atheists, anarchists....in over 200 plus years. For the rest of America, the intent and definition has been a consensus.
And "freedom OF/FROM religion" is still freedom to worship as you please. Whether the religion of Atheism or Nihilism. We have a choice to worship how and who we choose,or even to not worship at all. So you DO understand the 1st Amendment as it pertains to "religion" after all?
It's personal for EVERYBODY. You were assigned a religion while in the Army without your concent; Not true. I had "Heathen" as my religious preference on my dog tags. Saved me from having to listen to the recruiting spiel when reporting in to a new Group that had a Chaplin that didn't know me. Maybe a CO tried to coerce you into "Gawd." Not even once. I did have a Chaplin or two try to convert me before I became a declared Heathen,though. Your anecdotal cases still don't rise to the federal case you're making it out to be I never claimed it was an actual federal case. My claim and fear is that it is a POTENTIAL federal case because so many fundies want to "bring God back to government". The 1st Amendment and writings of the Founders is crystal clear on the matter of freedom OF religion. You are exhibit A due to your insistence that no one in America has a Constitutionally-guaranteed Freedom FROM Religion. It tells me you would like to make a belief in God mandatory,and make religion a part of government. Deny this if you want,but there is no other reason for you to be so blind and stubborn on this issue. It is a FACT that you can NOT have freedom OF religion unless you have a guarantee of freedom FROM religion. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Absolutely! As well as the freedom to NOT be forced to worship if you don't want. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"Bringing God back into government" vs. Let's see how Satan does? How's that working out for ya? Btw -- NO ONE has EVER been coerced via gubmint mandate into believing in God. There IS no such threat, never has been. Why so paranoid over a phantom bogeyman?
Because True Believers deny it,and fundies are required to spread the word of God. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Weinstein is an Obama hitman whose job is to war against the Christians in the military. He has the power to make commanders quake when chaplains under their command try to do their job mandated by their position in the military structure.
I think he knows quite well what the chaplains are required to do. I think he knows what he has been appointed to do as well. He sees these chaplains as the enemy.
Many Jews are faint from being observant.
Lets take a stab in the dark, is Weinstein a faggot?
But if devout, observant Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim clerics are excluded from the chaplain corps, do you believe your or anyone else could sell an all Wiccan or Pagan chaplain corps to the American people? Challenging all who believe in one or both books of the Bible, or the Quran, might lead to quite a backlash.
Lemme guess. NY, FL, CA, DC.
I imagine an orthodox Jew who runs a bakery observing a Palestinian-American and a skinhead coming in to place special orders, the very first customers of the week.
The religion of the chaplain is not the point, a chaplain is there to serve the spiritual and emotional needs of others. Chaplains perform wedding or conduct funeral ceremonies, administer communion, deliver spiritual messages, offer prayer at public meetings, and provide regular counseling. Other chaplains meet the need of the moment, usually through listening and prayer. I was a Wicca practitioner while in the military, but when I was facing a special court martial I was interviewed and evaluated by a Protestant chaplain for additional evaluation. I eventually was found not guilty, but I was under immense stress and not handling it well and the Chaplain, named Major Peacock helped me put things into perspective. There will never likely ever be a 'pagan Chaplain Corp,' as there are not as meany Pagans in the military, or general society to draw on to have them in high numbers. The mix will likely always be with Christians in the majority, with a smaller number of Muslim, Jewish and members of other faiths like Wicca. Confronting people to try to challenge a service member's faith is something a Chaplain should never do. Lemme guess. NY, FL, CA, DC. Nope. They live in the Bible Belt in the south and the mid-west. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think it goes further than that. It can probably result in court-martial charges and at a minimum the loss of their commission. Military Chaplains MUST be "one size fits all" practitioners. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Like your ass buddy. You don't support the first amendment. You're AINO.
It's the ENTIRE point. Did you miss the thread title and subject at hand: Title: Pentagon Urged To Boot Chaplains Who Oppose 'Gay' Marriage Those targeted chaplains are FUNDMENTAL CHRISTIAN. Not only that, Mikey Weinstein has specifically persecuted AND called for the ouster of Christian chaplains who openly display the Bible. I was a Wicca practitioner while in the military, but when I was facing a special court martial I was interviewed and evaluated by a Protestant chaplain for additional evaluation. I eventually was found not guilty... Who other than a Prot-Christian chaplain is going to show you that kind of understanding and compassion? I've an interpretation to make about your icon and symbolism -- ostensibly in "honor" of the Grateful Dead.' It's an open skull (the symbol of death.) The surrounding the periphery are some confusing psychedelic patterns. Within the skull and space of the brain is a temptingly beautiful blue sea trailing into sunny horizon -- a giant "Peace Sign" stands as monument and goalpost. Pretty slick, seductive deception. What it DOESN'T show is...just beyond that sunny, promise of peace...is the Lake of Fire. And by that time it's too late to turn back. The "Peace Sign"? What does it mean? It depends on who is displaying it. What's its history? The Saracens in A.D. 711 used this symbol to alternately represent a broken cross, a raven's claw, or a witch's foot, all presumably satanic symbols. Under the reign of Roman Emperor Nero, infamous for his brutal persecution of Christians and Jews, this symbol was prominently used to represent a broken cross or broken Jew. Nero crucified the Apostle Peter upside down, and the horrific event resembled the downward-pointing fork. It was thereafter called the Neronic cross. Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/peace-sign.html
Link: Grateful Dead Symbols De-Coded Part 4: The Skull and Lightning Bolt "For the next leg of our journey on our search for the meanings behind the Grateful Dead's iconic symbols, let's take a look at one of my personal favorites: the skull and lightning bolt, or “Steal your Face” logo. This image of a skull, cracked and divided by a lightning bolt that divides the head into two hemispheres—most typically blue and red, with the lower portion of the skull in white. Designed in 1969, the logo was the collaborative work of Owsley Stanley and artist Bob Thomas. Owsley was inspired by a freeway sign he happened to pass by—a round shape divided by a bold white line into an orange half and a blue half. The general shape and colors stood out, and Owsley had the notion that a blue and red design with a lightning bolt with make a cool logo. He shared his idea with Bob Thomas, who then drew up plans of the design. Originally, there was no skull face—the logo was simply a circle divided with the lightning bolt. The skull face was added on a few days later, as a way to symbolize the “Grateful Dead.” The band first used the logo as an identifying mark on their musical equipment, and later the symbol appeared on the inside album jacket of the self-titled album The Grateful Dead. The logo later appeared on the cover of the album Steal your Face, and has been known as the Steal your Face symbol ever since. Perhaps its the lightning bolt that signifies transformation, enlightenment, and the raw powers of nature, juxtaposed with a skull image and striking, distinct colors that lends to the symbol's equation to the whole “steal your face” concept. Through the band's music and the scene and philosophy that the music inspired, people were transformed. Their everyday masks were “cracked” by the honesty, the openness and “realness” of the Grateful Dead culture, and their mundane, limited identities were left behind. The skull and lightning symbol just happens to perfectly symbolize and encapsulate this idea, even though it was created years before the song which eventually came to lend the iconic graphic it its name." How would you know? You think it only protects some speech. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It's the ENTIRE point. Did you miss the thread title and subject at hand: Title: Pentagon Urged To Boot Chaplains Who Oppose 'Gay' Marriage Those targeted chaplains are FUNDMENTAL CHRISTIAN. WRONG! That is nothing more than the camel's nose under the tent,and the focus RIGHT NOW is on fundie Christians because they are the universal religious targets of ridicule right now,and it unites the far left and the ignorant masses as well as the devout Catholics (LOTS of overlap on that one!) that equate "religious fundies" with "KKK and militia members". I say it is the camel's nose under the tent because the goobers that support this will not only get what they ask for,but will get more than they expected. The precedent will have been established,and the Catholics,the Jews,and eventually (after they have served their role in destroying the Bill of Rights) the Muslims. In fact,NO religion will be safe other than the religion that worships the power of the government over the serfs. Make no mistake about it,total control of thoughts and actions is the ultimage goal. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Make no mistake about it,total control of thoughts and actions is the ultimage goal. On that we agree. There is an underlying subversive method to this madness. And it IS about absolute power and control. But what better way to achieve that than to cripple Christians and their values, which have undoubtedly provided America its traditional underpinnings? IT and its believers have been the foundation and glue that have held together this Republic since *before* we were a Republic. And THIS is why I've said for years -- so goes Christianity in America, so goes America and her ideals -- regardless of faith or lack thereof. Ergo, this is now a hot war between "Conserve-a-tism vs. "Progressive-ism." Ultimately, there are but these two horses to back.
Mike -- thanks for providing a different interpretation and your opinion of this "Grateful Dead" symbol. I realize that on its surface to you perhaps it represents...just another Grateful Dead symbol. I have nothing against GD fans, or their music. I respect your admiration of the band and nostalgia. That said -- in scraping below the surface, like many symbols -- a dual meaning is intended. In this case, occultist meanings and symbolism can be found. The skull has ALWAYS symbolized "death." The rest of your particular icon presents further problematic symbolism, as explained by the recognizable Peace Sign. In the context of the skull (and death), the peace sign is no longer. It is a "broken cross, a raven's claw, or a witch's foot" -- all can be presumed satanic symbols, and mockery of the Jews who believed in Christ's cross. I can't presume to know your heart -- whether this symbolism plays into your display of this particular "Grateful Dead" icon, or it's just simply a benign, favorite GD icon of yours. But for others...it is what it is.
That is a point I have argued on another thread about Chaplain Modder who is facing possible separation. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40191&Disp=All&#C76 nolu chan at 2015-06-18 23:49:25 ET However, the express point of the article of this thread is aimed any any chaplain who opposes gay marriage. It would not be possible for a Catholic chaplain to perform a same-sex marriage and not get himself ex-communicated from his church. Similarly, I would expect fundamentalist Protestant, orthodox Jewish, or Muslim clerics to oppose same-sex marriage as inconsistent with their religion. It is one thing to perform the job of a chaplain and to provide spiritual and emotional support to all and another thing to require them to actively participate in, or to actively support, something their religion does not permit. I would have expected a chaplain of any faith to have comforted and assisted you, as you relate one did. I would not expect the chaplain to partake of a Wiccan ceremony or to speak acceptingly of Wiccan beliefs. SCOTUS has determined abortion is a constitutional right. Should the military kick out all doctors who oppose abortion? Somebody in the military opposes abortion as it is almost impossible for the military member to obtain one in a military hospital. Many or most civilian hospitals do not perform the procedure either. What does it mean to "oppose gay marriage?" Does it mean to morally or religiously oppose it? To refuse to perform or participate in a gay marriage? To refuse to offer positive reinforcement in counseling a prospective spouse about an intended gay marriage? How does a Catholic chaplain positively counsel someone about doing something his religion condemns? At what point does one person's fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex outweigh another person's freedom of religious expression? If all the chaplains who are morally opposed to gay marriage are booted out of the service, who would be left? If all the doctors opposed to performing an abortion were booted out, would there be enough left to perform other procedures?
You see Christians as the most important "block" of people. I see them as just one of a number of prominent groups,and the way to take over control is to fragment these groups and people to the point where they hate and fear each other more than they do the globalist government. Nothing at all new about this other than the names of the players. It's the old "divide and conquer" strategy at play,and most people get too wrapped up in their hatred of the people they see as their enemy to even notice the true enemy. Yeah,the government could go after Voo Doo believers or NBA fans instead,but what would it gain them and who would really care? Going after Christianity takes out a politically powerful group that might stand against them,as well as providing them with organized and powerful allies from other religions who are jealous of the influenes and power that Christianity has in this country,and want to divide up the Christians goods amongst themselves. They are so blinded by their jealousy and hatred that they are blind to the FACT they once Christianity is destroyed THEY will be the next ones with their heads on the chopping blocks. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Well reasoned. But we are not dealing with a reasonable man in Weinstein. He has an agenda and will keep pushing it until someone calls him on his pair of 2s. I'm sure a gay military couple will test the waters. They will come in to either a Baptist or Catholic chaplain and ask for marriage counseling. Both will point out that they do not advise such unions and will no doubt refer them to some chaplain who will. We will only hear about the refusal part and not the referral part. It will make "news" and the chaplains will be vilified but exonerated yet their career will be over. It will be a victory for the homosexual lobby. Future chaplains will be recruited based on the same sex marriage litmus test and another institution will be hijacked by the secular left. You can all bookmark this post and refer to it when it happens. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
What does it mean to "oppose gay marriage?" Does it mean to morally or religiously oppose it? To refuse to perform or participate in a gay marriage? To refuse to offer positive reinforcement in counseling a prospective spouse about an intended gay marriage? How does a Catholic chaplain positively counsel someone about doing something his religion condemns? At what point does one person's fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex outweigh another person's freedom of religious expression? If all the chaplains who are morally opposed to gay marriage are booted out of the service, who would be left? If all the doctors opposed to performing an abortion were booted out, would there be enough left to perform other procedures? Killer cases and points, Chan. The hypocrisy and created contradictory conundrums are ALL on the left. And STILL they're steamrolling logic and the law. 1st Amendment "Rights" are now contingent on which political ideology of the purported "Equal Rights" protection clause of the now bogus 14th Amendment one stands... The arbiters of constitutional interpretation is appears are no one but SC, state, and circuit judges -- and 0blabla-assigned "Civilian Board" assassins like Mikey Weinstein. This way, 0blabla and the admin's fascists can claim their hands are clean of murder of the USCON.
They are so blinded by their jealousy and hatred that they are blind to the FACT they once Christianity is destroyed THEY will be the next ones with their heads on the chopping blocks. Yes...But for Christians, America has not really been about expanding "Christian" power, influence, and goods. That said, you've stated pretty much what I've already said. Maybe you needed to think it through and write it down into your own thoughts. The group that has been in control of America's steering wheel or helm have been...Christians, along with those with their kinds of values, ethics, and morals. The NEW "values" will be upside-down. Represented by the pathological insanity, il-logic, and brutality we see daily from the Fascist-Left. Once Christians (AND much of their ideological allies) are eradicated from positions of influence, we'll have full-blown, high-velocity anarchy. You think the WH and Constitutional already have been compromised with insane decisions? Just wait. We're just now gulping down some force-fed sampling of the future at low-velocity. So yes -- this means right on down the line, the haters of the values of Fundies and the Bible will no longer offer any strong buffer and moral "Maginot Line" to stop the new controlling group from treating them like bloody rag-dolls. The Fascist-Left. It's here. And it is poised to finish its blitzkreig of subversiveness. The s*** will manage to hit the fan twice; Initially when the pro-Christian conservatives and their allies hit back; And then after everything is said and done -- the fascist Left will crater this world. Scorched earth is something they've always excelled at. In its wake will be a Mad Max World.
I disagree on one important point. The recent decision is based upon the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause is cited only for ancillary support to the main argument that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. Really, I have not lost my mind and just made this crap up. Equal protection of a right does not arise until the right is established as existing. The claim of a fundamental right is not just the use of a surplus adjective. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Challenged legislation that significantly burdens a "fundamental right" (examples include First Amendment rights, (privacy, and the right to travel interstate)) will be reviewed under a stricter standard of review. A law will be held violative of the due process clause if it is not closely tailored to promote a compelling or overriding interest of government. A similar principle applies under Equal Protection law. Is the right to same-sex marriage either explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution? As you may observe, finding a fundamental right at argument, whether explicit or emanating from a penumbra, affects the applicable standard of review under the due process clause. The underpinning of the majority opinion defining marriage is due process, not equal protection. See also, Roberts in dissent at 23-24: "Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right." Ante, at 19. The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis for its holding. Ante, at 22. Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal [24] Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 197 (2009). In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States' "legitimate state interest" in "preserving the traditional institution of marriage." Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). It is important to note with precision which laws petitioners have challenged. Although they discuss some of the ancillary legal benefits that accompany marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and recognition of spousal status on official documents, petitioners' lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically. The equal protection analysis might be different, in my view, if we were confronted with a more focused challenge to the denial of certain tangible benefits. Of course, those more selective claims will not arise now that the Court has taken the drastic step of requiring every State to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples.
"The [DoD] has made the same benefits available to all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation, as long as service member-sponsors provide a valid marriage certificate," Christen said. The ruling also has no impact on the roles or responsibilities of military chaplains, he said. "A military chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate at a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs," Christensen said. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-now-legal-for-gay-military-couples-in-all-50.html From Military.com website. Guess we'll see what happens. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I am certain that it is inevitable. But if it works as it has with abortions in the military, it may be difficult to find someone who will volunteer for the function. I rather doubt that military doctors unanimously oppose abortion at a personal level, but they are not going out of their way to make it available. Another conundrum I thought of is two very bad same-sex married people. Could they be cellmates? If in the same prison, would displays of affection be prohibited? Would seperating them into different prisons or wings of a prison, as a matter of policy, be cruel and unusual, or something or other? If cellmates decide to get married, what happens? If the prison chaplain is Catholic, what does he do?
And Obama is laughing as he knows he has sowed many destructive seeds that will affect long after the freak is gone.
Comments (62 - 118) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#23. To: redleghunter (#22)
Freedom of gives an option. Freedom from is exclusive.
#24. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#22)
Freedom of gives an option. Freedom from is exclusive.
#25. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#21)
(Edited)
If you don't have the freedom to not be religious,you don't have the freedom to refuse to follow religious beliefs you don't share so you CAN follow the religious beliefs you do share.
#26. To: Liberator (#24)
The intent and language can't be any clearer:
#27. To: Liberator (#25)
If you don't have the freedom to not be religious,you don't have the freedom to refuse to follow religious beliefs you don't share so you CAN follow the religious beliefs you do share.
#28. To: sneakypete (#27)
(Edited)
I know this is personal for you,but that is no reason to have your head stuck up your ass about it.
#29. To: sneakypete (#26)
Yeah,that's why nobody disagrees about it,huh?
#30. To: sneakypete (#27)
Freedom OF religion also CLEARLY means freedom FROM religion because it bars the state from forcing us to adopt a state religion.
#31. To: Liberator (#28)
You're projecting, because this case IS personal...FOR YOU.
#32. To: Liberator (#30)
(Edited)
And "freedom OF/FROM religion" is still freedom to worship as you please.
#33. To: sneakypete (#31)
My claim and fear is that it is a POTENTIAL federal case because so many fundies want to "bring God back to government".
#34. To: Liberator (#33)
Btw -- NO ONE has EVER been coerced via gubmint mandate into believing in God. There IS no such threat, never has been. Why so paranoid over a phantom bogeyman?
#35. To: sneakypete (#9)
#36. To: redleghunter (#8)
#37. To: nolu chan (#4)
#38. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
Let me take a stab in the dark, is Weinstein a Jew?
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
The U.S. Army Chaplains Guide to Wicca
#40. To: sneakypete, Liberator (#20)
Ever notice how it seems like the majority of the Zionists don't live in Israel?(G)
#41. To: Don (#37)
Many Jews are faint from being observant.
#42. To: nolu chan (#39)
#43. To: nolu chan (#40)
Ever notice how it seems like the majority of the Zionists don't live in Israel?(G)
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#42)
Confronting people to try to challenge a service member's faith is something a Chaplain should never do.
#45. To: sneakypete (#44)
#46. To: Ferret Mike, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, garyspfc, Don, Stoner (#42)
The religion of the chaplain is not the point...
#47. To: Liberator (#46)
(Edited)
I have long been a Deadhead. I have seen 171 concerts and collect Grateful Dead graphics and icons. The last shows of the Dead are occurring right now this weekend at Soldier's Field in Chicago. I also have worked for Ray Sewell at one of his 'Chez Ray's restaurants. Ray once was the chef that traveled with the band and prepared meals and food. I have gone to Ken Kesey's ranch in Pleasant Hill, Oregon with Ray and his family to two of Ken's New Year's Day parties, Ray and others in that community knew me from my near death from a forty-three foot fall from a tree cutting protest which made me well known in my area. I have also enjoyed the backstage scene of the group originally called the Warlocks and the Grateful Dead is one of my favorite groups. I just have this variation of a Steal Your Face up to honor the band and their family who's last shows are this weekend which also marks fifty years of the existence of the Grateful Dead.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#45)
Like your ass buddy. You don't support the first amendment.
#49. To: Liberator, Ferret Mike, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, garyspfc, Don, Stoner, *Religious History and Issues* (#46)
The religion of the chaplain is not the point...
#50. To: sneakypete, Ferret Mike, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, garyspfc, Don, Stoner (#49)
In fact,NO religion will be safe other than the religion that worships the power of the government over the serfs.
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#47)
#52. To: Ferret Mike (#42)
The religion of the chaplain is not the point, a chaplain is there to serve the spiritual and emotional needs of others.
His job as a chaplain, is to provide spiritual and emotional support. It is not to convert anyone to his personal religious beliefs. He is there to offer support, not to save them from perdition. A rabbi could offer support to a Catholic without condemning him for having bacon with his eggs. A single pregnant servicewoman does not seek the support of a chaplain to hear about the evils of pre-marital sex. A chaplain cannot counsel a muslim on the evils of Islam. A Christian might not take too kindly to a muslim chaplain counseling them on Sharia and halal. The chaplain must be able to offer comfort and support to all. It is not unChristian to comfort a gay person without confronting them with unwelcome condemnation of their lifestyle.
Title: Pentagon Urged To Boot Chaplains Who Oppose 'Gay' Marriage
#53. To: Liberator (#50)
But what better way to achieve that than to cripple Christians and their values, which have undoubtedly provided America its traditional underpinnings?
#54. To: Liberator, Ferret Mike (#51)
I can't presume to know your heart -- whether this symbolism plays into your display of this particular "Grateful Dead" icon, or it's just simply a benign, favorite GD icon of yours. But for others...it is what it is.
#55. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#52)
What does it mean to "oppose gay marriage?" Does it mean to morally or religiously oppose it? To refuse to perform or participate in a gay marriage? To refuse to offer positive reinforcement in counseling a prospective spouse about an intended gay marriage? How does a Catholic chaplain positively counsel someone about doing something his religion condemns?
#56. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Ferret Mike (#52)
SCOTUS has determined abortion is a constitutional right. Should the military kick out all doctors who oppose abortion? Somebody in the military opposes abortion as it is almost impossible for the military member to obtain one in a military hospital. Many or most civilian hospitals do not perform the procedure either.
#57. To: sneakypete (#53)
(Edited)
Going after Christianity takes out a politically powerful group that might stand against them,as well as providing them with organized and powerful allies from other religions who are jealous of the influenes and power that Christianity has in this country,and want to divide up the Christians goods amongst themselves.
#58. To: Liberator (#56)
1st Amendment "Rights" are now contingent on which political ideology of the purported "Equal Rights" protection clause of the now bogus 14th Amendment one stands...
Fundamental rights. Those rights which have their source, and are explicitly or implicitly guaranteed, in the federal Constitution, Price v. Cohen, C.A.Pa., 715 F.2d 87, 93, and state constitutions, Sidle v. Majors, 264 Ind. 206, 341 N.E.2d 763. See e.g., Bill of rights.
In addition to their due process argument, petitioners contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires their States to license and recognize same-sex marriages. The majority does not seriously engage with this claim. Its discussion is, quite frankly, difficult to follow. The central point seems to be that there is a "synergy between" the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Ante, at 20. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases. It is casebook doctrine that the "modern Supreme Court's treatment of equal protection claims has used a means-ends methodology in which judges ask whether the classification the government is using is sufficiently related to the goals it is pursuing." G. Stone, L. Seidman, C. Sunstein, M. Tushnet, & P. Karlan, Constitutional Law 453 (7th ed. 2013). The majority's approach today is different:
#59. To: redleghunter (#55)
Defense Department spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said the ruling will not have any effect on the military when it comes to marriage recognition or benefits, since these have been in place since the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013.
#60. To: redleghunter (#55)
I'm sure a gay military couple will test the waters.
They will come in to either a Baptist or Catholic chaplain and ask for marriage counseling. Both will point out that they do not advise such unions and will no doubt refer them to some chaplain who will. We will only hear about the refusal part and not the referral part.
#61. To: nolu chan (#60)
If cellmates decide to get married, what happens? If the prison chaplain is Catholic, what does he do?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]