...but first some background.
Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.
What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.
Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.
If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide. The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!
Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.
What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command. The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.
For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well? If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).
Remember, you heard the term coined here first.
UPDATE 05/24/2017
Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.
by Kirsten Andersen
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 12, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Two months after the release of a report by former Clinton administration Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders recommending the U.S. military lift its longstanding ban on transgender service members, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the Pentagon is open to doing just that.
“Every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have an opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it,” Hagel told ABC News in an interview Sunday.
“This is an area that we – we've – we've not defined enough.”
Current military code bars those who identify as “transgendered” from service on the grounds that they are mentally ill. The American Psychiatric Association classifies gender dysphoria – defined as “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender” – as a mental illness, and sufferers show dramatically increased levels of suicidal ideation, depression, substance abuse and risky sexual behaviors.
Members of the military who express confusion about their gender are generally given a medical discharge immediately, as the condition presents a range of logistical problems when it comes to housing, washroom access, medical care and troop morale.
While Hagel admitted to ABC News that the integration of openly transgender troops would be “complicated,” he said the current policy should be “continually” reviewed. “I'm open to that, by the way,” he said.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told LifeSiteNews she was not surprised by Hagel’s remarks, even coming on the heels of a recent statement by Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen indicating the military has “no plans” to lift the ban.
“We predicted it,” Donnelly told LifeSiteNews. “When the law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ … was repealed, it ushered in a new policy: What we usually call LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] law, which means regulations will be made to implement the new policy.”
Donnelly highlighted the timing of Hagel’s remarks to ABC, noting that they were made just as the Obama administration is ramping up for its yearly celebration of “LGBT Equality Month” in June. She predicted that if Obama does plan to overturn the ban on transgender soldiers, he may choose that month to do it.
Transgender activists have been pushing to serve openly since the military abandoned its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuality in 2011. The issue has received increased national media attention since Pfc. Bradley Manning – who is currently serving a 35-year sentence at Ft. Leavenworth military prison for leaking classified documents – announced his desire to live as a female and demanded the military pay for his sex change operation. (The military refused.)
Recently, controversial former Clinton administration Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders joined with the Palm Center, a transgender-activism think tank, to release a report recommending President Barack Obama overturn the ban and begin funding sex change operations and hormone treatments for soldiers immediately. "There is no compelling medical reason for the ban,” stated the report’s authors, who said the ban was an “expensive, damaging and unfair barrier to health care access for the approximately 15,450 transgender personnel” they estimate are presently serving in the military.
Outspoken liberal activist Sandra Fluke, who rose to fame by demanding taxpayers foot the bill for women’s birth control, has echoed that sentiment, telling an audience at California’s Claremont McKenna College, “We still don’t let trans-folk join the military. That needs to change.” Fluke has also argued in favor of forcing private insurers to cover sex-change procedures.
Donnelly slammed Elders’ report, saying, “This was not a study, it was a polemic promoting the idea [of transgender military service]. Just because it comes from an academic setting doesn’t make it a study,” she said.
Donnelly told LifeSiteNews that a repeal on the ban would negatively impact the vast majority of soldiers. “This is an administrative regulation that the president, should he decided to repeal it, would have serious consequences,” Donnelly said. “Even Secretary Hagel has said that the military institution is different than the civilian world. Living situations are very different; issues of privacy are very important, especially in deployed situations in tight quarters. So it’s a matter of morale, and morale is important to good order, good discipline and the like.”
Donnelly pointed to cases like Bradley Manning’s, warning that transgender soldiers are likely to demand costly sex-change operations and hormone therapies that might not only cost taxpayers millions, but could take soldiers out of commission during their recovery, thereby reducing troop readiness.
“When you say, ‘this is going to be the policy from here on in,’ without even beginning to estimate what costs would be, you really are inviting something that does not make sense for the military,” Donnelly said.
Donnelly speculated that the prospect of “free” sex-change operations might even motivate increasing numbers of transgender people to join the military, not out of a desire to serve their country, but to take advantage of an opportunity to obtain a costly elective procedure that few private insurers cover.
Donnelly said that should Obama repeal the ban, it would take an act of Congress to reinstate it. However, she added, it is likely political pressure from transgender activists would make lawmakers reluctant to do so.
Never thought this article would have these long legs.
AMAZING....OVER 38 THOUSAND VIEWS...
That's got be because it's an important and timely topic.
Here's the latest...and I ask what is Congress doing about it???
September 19, 2014
Nitro...this one is a doozy!
Fri Oct 31, 2014 - 10:52 am EST
By Ben Johnson
The Obama administration has said the U.S. Army “discriminated” against a transgender male employee by not allowing him to use the female restroom, calling him “he,” and asking him to stop having uncomfortable and “unwanted” discussions with his co-workers about his upcoming surgical castration.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) found that the Department of the Army committed gender identity discrimination against “Tamara” Lusardi, a civilian quality assurance specialist who announced he wanted to become a woman.
Lusardi, who has been a civilian employee since November 2004, announced his transition in April 2010 and began presenting himself as a female six months later. Three members of management replied, “we were clear that we would support” his sex change and wanted him “treated fairly,” but they asked Lusardi “to recognize the two way street of ensuring the rights of the rest of the workforce.” As part of that, Lusardi voluntarily agreed to use a one-stall executive restroom until his final surgical operation was complete.
The managers said they had been “informed that some female workers stated they did not feel comfortable” when he used the female restroom three times. Lusardi replied he was “legally a female.”
In its August ruling, the OSC ruled that the restroom agreement “had the effect of isolating and segregating [Lusardi] and treating [him] differently from employees of [his] same gender.”
Referring to him as a man also violated federal law, the OSC claimed. Lusardi complained that his second-line supervisor “repeatedly referred to [him] by [his] birth name,” “used 'he' to refer to [him], in at least two team meetings,” and once referred to him as “sir” in an email.
Civil rights officials also slammed Lusardi's managers for asking him to refrain from sharing the specifics of his impending sex-change operation with co-workers in detail. Such “unwelcome comments” were not appropriate “office chatter,” one supervisor told Lusardi. “I'm getting a lot of people telling me you're approaching them with information,” he said, asking him to “please be mindful of your surroundings and conversations with others.”
The OSC held that this was improper because, although numerous employees complained that the discussions adversely affected them, it did not stop them from performing their jobs.
The combined effect of these three policies caused Lusardi “significant discomfort and humiliation,” the Obama administration ruled.
A report from OSC written on August 28, said the Department of the Army violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302((10) and its actions “likely constitute...sex discrimination.” Neither statute mentions transgender people as a protected class entitled to privileged employment status.
“The Obama administration should not be adding protected categories to non-discrimination codes that are not found in the Constitution or in statutory law,” Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told LifeSiteNews. “This is the executive branch usurping a legislative function.”
Although the OSC said that supervisors acted “perhaps with the best of intentions” while “navigating new terrain,” it ruled that they had to endure sensitivity training – something Sprigg called “wholly inappropriate.”
“This is simply a form of ideological indoctrination, and a prelude to permitting transgenders to serve on active duty in the military,” he said. Similar training materials issued by the military after homosexuals were allowed to openly serve, seem to undermine any moral objection or aversion to homosexuality. The Associated Press reports that the materials teach soldiers, “There is nothing wrong with 'hanging around' a gay bar,” and “if a Marine spots two men in his battalion kissing off-duty at a shopping mall, he should react as if he were seeing a man and woman.”
The ruling denied any financial damages but Lusardi, who is represented by the Transgender Law Center, has already contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to pursue additional penalties against the U.S. Army.
“I applaud [Mr.] Lusardi for standing up not only for [his] rights, but for those of all federal employees,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. “The Army deserves credit for seeking to right the wrongs that [Mr.] Lusardi faced and for creating a more welcoming environment for its LGBT employees.”
The announcement comes as transgender activists have made another push to repeal the military's ban on transgender people serving openly in the military, a still-marginal view embraced by a growing number of liberal Democrats.
Sandra Fluke told a gathering at Claremont McKenna College on February 13, “We still don’t let trans-folk join the military. That needs to change.” Weeks later, controversial Clinton Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders issued a report calling for transgender people to be able to serve in the military. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and fellow California Democratic Representative Susan Davis have also endorsed the call.
None have served in the military.
In May, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said he is “open to” allowing transgender people to serve openly in the military, but said it is “an area we've not defined enough.”
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen told U.S. News and World Report recently that no review of the policy has yet been ordered.
Still, transgender demonstrators are confident the administration will deliver. “We all know it’s inevitable [that the policy will be changed] and it’s inevitable relatively soon,” Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told The Washington Post.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-administration-orders-army-to-teach-transgender-sensitivity-training?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cd33c7a062-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-cd33c7a062-326240770
Fri Dec 12, 2014 - 12:56 pm EST
By Kirsten Anderson
It’s been a bad month, publicity-wise, for homosexual activists. Just two weeks after a cofounder of the high-profile pro-gay Human Rights Campaign (HRC) was arrested and charged with raping a 15-year-old boy, the homosexual Washington Blade news service has broken a story about another possible rape by a prominent activist in the movement.
According to the Blade, Air Force Lt. Joshua Seefried, the activist behind the repeal of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy regarding homosexuality, has been charged with forcible sodomy and is facing a court martial after allegedly raping another service member after a party in 2012.
Seefried, 28, reportedly raped Marine Lt. Edgar Luna after the two had attended a get-together with other homosexual military officers celebrating the repeal of DADT. The group initially met at a restaurant for drinks, then Seefried invited several of the officers to his hotel to enjoy the spa. Luna took him up on the offer. Later on, Seefried, Luna, and a third officer, Coast Guard Lt. Commander John Fiorentine, went back to Seefried’s hotel room.
Luna says he was so intoxicated that he doesn’t remember anything that happened after they left the restaurant, aside from a vague memory of Seefried making sexual advances he said were not consensual. At some point during the evening, he passed out. When he awoke around midnight, he was nude and confused. When he asked Seefried what had happened, Seefried told him that he had seen him engaging in sex acts with Fiorentine.
Luna filed complaints against both Seefried and Fiorentine, arguing that he was too intoxicated to consent to sexual contact. As a result, the officers were charged with wrongful sexual contact and forcible sodomy.
Fiorentine faced an Article 32 hearing (similar to a civilian grand jury hearing) to determine whether he would face a court martial trial, but the investigator in that case found insufficient evidence to proceed, and the case was dropped.
The Article 32 investigator in Seefried’s case also recommended dropping the charges due to lack of evidence. But Major General Darryl Burke, commander of the Air Force District of Washington, overrode the investigator’s recommendation, and Seefried’s commanding officer, Lt. Col. Michael Goodwin, added a third charge of abusive sexual contact.
Seefried’s civilian attorney has suggested that by moving ahead with a court martial despite the Article 32 investigator’s recommendation to drop the case, the Air Force is trying to send a message that it’s taking accusations of sexual abuse seriously. He asked presiding judge Col. Ira Perkins to dismiss the case, arguing that his client is being prosecuted unfairly due to his superiors’ fear of being perceived as taking a rape claim lightly.
But Burke denies having any ulterior motive for Seefried’s prosecution.
“I base my decisions on the evidence,” Burke said at Monday’s hearing.
Col. Perkins is now deliberating whether to dismiss the case, or reopen the Article 32 investigation to gather more evidence, as Seefried’s attorney requested in a separate motion. He is expected to make a decision sometime this week. In the meantime, Seefried’s trial is scheduled to move forward next month.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/air-force-gay-activist-awaits-trial-for-forcible-sodomy?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=00107dcd87-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-00107dcd87-326240770
Bradley Manning before his incarceration and decision to start going by the name 'ChelseaWed Feb 18, 2015 - 7:56 pm EST
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A draft memorandum uncovered by USA Today suggests that the United States Army may soon make it more difficult to discharge soldiers who suffer from gender confusion, a move reminiscent of policy changes made during the lead-up to the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy toward homosexuality.
Currently, gender dysphoria – more commonly referred to as “transgenderism” – is considered a psychosexual disorder by the U.S. military and is grounds for separation from service. While decisions to discharge transgender soldiers are currently made by officers in the field, according to the unsigned memo obtained by USA Today, such decisions will soon have to be approved by the assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs – a civilian appointed by the president.
The Army has so far refused to comment on the authenticity of the document obtained by USA Today, but such a move would closely mirror similar actions taken immediately prior to the 2011 repeal of DADT. In 2010, the Pentagon twice increased the difficulty with which military commanders could expel troops who engaged in homosexual activity, first requiring a general or flag officer’s approval, and later requiring approval of the service branch secretary under the guidance of the Department of Defense general counsel and the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, another civilian presidential political appointment.
The alleged memo also comes on the heels of a controversial reversal of Armed Forces policy toward Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, a former soldier currently serving a 35-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth military prison for leaking more than 700,000 classified documents. Manning came out as transgender the day after his 2013 sentencing and has mounted a legal crusade to force the Army to transfer him to a women’s prison, call him by female pronouns, allow him to dress as a woman and pay for a sex change procedure. The Army initially refused to indulge Manning’s demands, but on February 5, agreed to begin providing hormone treatments at taxpayer expense to begin his “transition” to living as a female. Some observers have speculated that the decision could set a precedent for future accommodation of active duty transgender troops, should the military drop its ban on their service.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, questioned the validity of the proposed rule change, and told LifeSiteNews she believes the Obama administration is engaging in “a replay of the incremental strategy” it used five years ago to forcibly integrate openly practicing homosexuals into the military.
“By regulation, transgender persons are not eligible for military service, so this administrative order cannot be justified,” Donnelly said. “The official that would be given authority to decide these cases is, in effect, a political appointee who will impose President Obama's LGBT agenda on military men and women who would be directly affected.”
Donnelly said accommodation of transsexuals – which often means permitting biological males to share restroom, shower, and sleeping facilities with females, and vice-versa – could prove not only disruptive, but dangerous in a military setting.
“[R]egulations regarding transgenders … should not be disregarded or circumvented as a political payoff to the President's LGBT constituency,” Donnelly told LifeSiteNews. “Even with medical therapy, hormones, and even surgery, a person's biological makeup and DNA remain the same. Accommodating biologically-male persons in the private quarters of military women would be inherently disruptive and demoralizing -- consequences that affect military readiness.”
“In addition, it would be wrong to expect military health care providers to participate in highly-controversial medical treatments and therapies to alter ‘gender identity,” Donnelly said. “Transgender persons can serve our country in other ways, but they are not eligible to serve in the military.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-policy-would-make-it-harder-to-expel-gender-confused-soldiers?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=69ad929439-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-69ad929439-326240770
Fri Mar 27, 2015 - 7:00 am EST
March 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- They may not be saying so publicly, but behind the scenes, U.S. military officials are highly critical of the Obama administration’s push to allow people who identify as “transgender” to join the service, reports the Associated Press.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources close to Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the AP his most senior advisers had expressed “serious reservations” about making accommodations for self-identified “transgender” individuals who claim their mental and emotional gender does not match their physical sex.
Currently, transgender individuals are banned from serving in any branch of the U.S. military on the grounds that gender dysphoria (the medical term for transgenderism) is a serious psychological condition considered incompatible with military service. As a result, coming out as “transgender” is grounds for an immediate medical discharge.
Until recently, any senior officer could expel a service member under his or her command upon discovering the service member suffers from gender dysphoria. But last month, the Army issued a memo indicating that such expulsions may soon require approval by a civilian administrator chosen by the president. Additionally, multiple Pentagon officials have stated that the ban on transgender troops is likely to come under review soon, with an eye toward discarding the ban completely.
Secretary Carter has said he is “very open-minded” about allowing transgender individuals to serve, and told reporters and troops in Afghanistan, “I don't think anything but their suitability for service should preclude them.”
Meanwhile, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James has summed up her position in favor of abandoning the ban on transgender troops with just two words: “Times change.”
But according to the AP, top military leaders are deeply worried about the long-term ramifications of reversing the ban on transgender troops, especially questions of appropriate housing, bathroom, and shower arrangements. As the military struggles to deal with the already alarmingly high rate of sexual assault among troops, allowing biological males to share sex-segregated private spaces with females and vice-versa is seen as potentially throwing unnecessary fuel on the fire.
The AP’s sources also said Pentagon officials are concerned that allowing transgender troops to serve openly could have a negative impact on unit cohesion and readiness. In particular, Pentagon brass are concerned about whether accepting transgender troops will mean the military – and by extension, the taxpayers – will be forced to pay for elective sex change surgeries and hormone treatments for these individuals, which can cost upwards of $60,000. The surgeries carry serious risks and require significant recovery time, and in the case of male-to-female sex change procedures, the treatments by design leave recipients physically weaker and more vulnerable than before. They often include silicon breast and/or buttock implants, which carry additional long-term risks. All of these factors have the potential to significantly impact troop readiness.
The question of the military’s treatment of transgender individuals has come to the forefront in recent months due in no small part to the demands of one of its most famous prisoners, Bradley Manning – a former Army specialist convicted of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents during the 2010 Wikileaks scandal. The day after Manning was sentenced to 35 years at the infamous Fort Leavenworth military prison, he announced he identified as a female, and requested that both the military and the public at large refer to him as “Chelsea.” Soon after, a judge granted his request for a legal name change.
Manning later sued the Pentagon, insisting the military pay for a sex change surgery and drugs, allow him to dress as a woman, and transfer him to a women’s facility. At first, the Army refused all of Manning’s demands, stating bluntly, “The Army does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder.” But as the lawsuit heated up, they offered a compromise, agreeing to provide hormone treatments as long as Manning continues to observe the male dress code for his own safety.
The Army’s compromise echoes the approach of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), which already pays for sex change hormones and other non-surgical treatments for retired and honorably discharged troops who identify as transgender. Currently, the VA is prohibited from directly funding sex change surgeries, but some of the veterans it treats are covered by Medicare, which was ordered by the Obama administration to begin offering the surgeries last year.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-military-leaders-quietly-concerned-about-proposal-to-lift-ban-on-transge
"In keeping with your observations on the anti-God agenda -- http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/05/chaplain-corps-disbanded/
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY KEY, PARAMOUNT, AND NO SMALL ISSUE, THE DISBANDMENT OF THE CHAPLAIN CORPS IS AN EPIC SIGN OF THE END TIMES
"Questions to the White House on this new initiative went unanswered, but West Wing staff confirmed on background that the administration is currently focus-grouping a policy shift toward a religion-free, sexuality-neutral military.
Referencing the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the all-army memorandum (called an ALARACT) says the Army will “lead the way in further bringing the military into a future where all servicemembers are free of bigotry, exclusion and intolerance, and where all identities, family structures and lifestyles are celebrated and supported equally.”
It then goes on to declare that the existence of official officers of faith within the ranks is “inconsistent with a new directive … there is no place for mythology and superstition in a 21st-century military, especially when these extreme beliefs are used to justify an unequal work and operating environment.” From Jim Stone
Articles: Disaster: Today's Warrior Purge in the U.S. military
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/disaster_todays_warrior_purge_in_the_us_military.html
http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/17/should-military-chaplains-be-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-weddings/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRohuK7IZKXonjHpfsX56u4vXKW0lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ATMdjNa%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm
Should Military Chaplains Be Forced to Conduct Same-Sex Weddings?
Greg Davis / @SirGregofDavis / August 17, 2015 / 35 comments
Army Chaplain, Father Joseph Angotti, talks with a soldier following mass at the Regimental Chapel on Sand Hill in Fort Benning, Ga. (Photo: ROBIN TRIMARCHI/KRT/Newscom)
Commentary By
Greg Davis/ @SirGregofDavis
Greg Davis is a chaplain candidate in the U.S. Army Reserve and a graduate from The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program.
Last month, the United States Army celebrated the 240th anniversary of the Army Chaplain Corps.
Amidst the celebrations there was also concern: there seems to be a growing threat to religious liberty for military chaplains.
I know, I was just sworn in as a chaplain candidate for the Army.
What happens to chaplains from religious communities that view marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
With the mayor of Houston subpoenaing local pastors’ (who are not government employees) sermons to see if they contain any “homophobic” messages, it is not far-fetched to think that the government will do the same for its own employed chaplains.
It has in fact already occurred – a military chaplain was removed from duty after sharing teachings of his religious belief.
Throughout the history of the Army Chaplain Corps, chaplains have served by providing soldiers and their families a place to worship and receive the spiritual care and support that aligns with their own religious convictions.
It is important to have chaplains in our military because they ensure that every soldier has available to them everything necessary to exercise their religious liberty according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Without chaplains, soldiers would not have proper access to the spiritual care they desire.
Col. Ron Crews, a retired United States Army chaplain and now the Executive Director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, was recently interviewed on the subject of the role of chaplains in the military.
Crews spoke about the important duties the chaplain performs, as well as threats to religious liberty for chaplains and soldiers. “Chaplains are there to make sure every service member can exercise their religious liberty while they wear the uniform” says Crews.
Chaplains provide religious services, teach Bible studies and Sunday schools, work with youth ministries, and provide counseling for soldiers.
That is not all that chaplains do, as Crews points out. Chaplains also play an important role in cultivating a strong marriage culture in the military.
One example is that chaplains lead marriage retreats called, “Strong Bonds Marriage Retreats.” The purpose of the marriage retreats is to strengthen the marital bonds between soldiers and their spouses.
“Most importantly (for the chaplain),” says Crews, “is to be there for the military person or family member. To make sure that person can worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.” That is by the constitution why we are there.”
Crews expressed great concern over the potential effects from the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, and also how the Secretary of Defense is pushing for transgender persons in the military.
How will this affect how chaplains perform religious ceremonies and conduct marital counseling and lead marriage retreats? Will chaplains who believe marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman be told they cannot express their beliefs while exercising their religious duties?
Will what they say in their sermons be controlled? Crews mentioned that a few chaplains have already been reprimanded for what they have said during religious services.
It is vital to recognize the religious freedom for military chaplains. Soldiers have the right to worship according to dictates of their conscience, and chaplains must be free to exercise their religious duties according to the religious affiliations they represent.
It is important that the government respects each person’s right to worship and express their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience. The government must see that all people are free to do so, including military chaplains.
The American soldier swears allegiance to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
But if the constitutional rights of our military men and women are not protected, how can we expect them to risk their lives to protect ours?
That appears to comply with...
http://dailysignal.com/copyright-information/
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
