View Thread

Atheists Today » Power and Control » LGBT
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
DOD gives thumbs up for same sex marriages by chaplains
Skeeve
Pretty cool.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon has decided that military chaplains may perform same-sex unions, whether on or off a military installation.

The ruling announced Friday by the Pentagon's personnel chief follows the Sept. 20 repeal of a law that had prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.


From AP
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
catman
Huh. I wonder what percentage of chaplains will be willing to do so.
 
Hypatia
At least now they can't say they aren't allowed to by law.
 
seeker
Given the religiosity of the military these days it will be interesting to see what repercussions will result.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Skeeve
Have you noticed how quiet this story has been?

It amazes me how much people trust the American news media. Sad
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Bob of QF
Jon Stewart had several bits on the subject that were interesting.

It's making the more liberal news sites (such as NPR) and several service persons have come out as fully gay since the repeal of DADT.

I see this as progress.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Theory_Execution
...several service persons have come out as fully gay since...


Were they just a bit faggy before hand? Haha.

Ye, I dont like the wording of that one, 'may', if the US spends a dime on a Chaplain it should the the right of the two to be married that they can use the Chaplain.

Why there are religious homosexuals stuns me, much like decendents of slaves being religious.
 
Bob of QF
If I were both in the military, and desired to get married?

I'd hook up with the captain of a ship or boat, instead of the token religious idiot.

I don't know-- can captains of the other branches marry as well? I would think there would be a quid pro quo rule here, maybe the base commander or some such shit.

In the navy at least, the "chaplains" could get off the hook that way.

And isn't being a 'chaplain' in a serving military a contradiction in terms?

It certainly seems like it to me, at any rate... they are here, supporting the killing of humans (never mind the reasoning behind that) and that seems to me, to contradict what they pretend to stand for in the first place...

... oh well-- to be any flavor of 'religious' you need at least a minimum of hypocrisy anyway.

What's a little more?
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
Theory_Execution wrote:

...several service persons have come out as fully gay since...


Were they just a bit faggy before hand? Haha.



Under the rules of DADT, they had to hide who they were effectively enough, such that they were not noticed (for being gay).

For most, this likely presents little behavior change, apart from pretending to like the opposite sex. But for some, I would imagine it'd require a major suppression of personality. Perhaps these sorts of persons are not really interested in the military anyhow, so it wouldn't be an issue.

I've met and known any number of people who were gay, but until the subject of dating or sex came around in the conversation, you'd never guess just from their personalities.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Theory_Execution
My point is being homosexual or gay is only really who you prefer to fuck and love - and as military practice as far as I know does not incorporate any loving or fucking (may be wrong here, under this DADT you may have been expected to get married at some point) where does the partially come in?

So to me, the lying about wanting the opposite sex would be pleading to be fully straight.

But I suppose it is possible to read 'gay' as a lifestyle - I dont, because I have met, as you say, many who can (and do) do what a heterosexual guy would do. A do be di do ba bahhhh! (there were so many 'do's in there I had to finish strong.
 
seeker
Bob of QF wrote:

If I were both in the military, and desired to get married?

I'd hook up with the captain of a ship or boat, instead of the token religious idiot.

I don't know-- can captains of the other branches marry as well? I would think there would be a quid pro quo rule here, maybe the base commander or some such shit. ...


You might want to rethink that. A lot of those Captains are virulent homophobes. In fact the repercussions I expect most will be things like slower promotions, extra duty etc. because it is precisely those nominally in charge who are in the best position to retaliate with impunity.

As I remember it, and this is memory from 30 years ago, a Captain in the Navy is equivalent to a Colonel in the other branches. The term Captain is used differently in the Navy as well, any commander of a vessel can properly be referred to as 'Captain' regardless of rank.

When it comes to marriage anyone can perform a marriage ceremony. The marriage is official when the marriage certificate is issued by the state and has nothing to do with the ceremony.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Bob of QF
seeker wrote:

Bob of QF wrote:

If I were both in the military, and desired to get married?

I'd hook up with the captain of a ship or boat, instead of the token religious idiot.

I don't know-- can captains of the other branches marry as well? I would think there would be a quid pro quo rule here, maybe the base commander or some such shit. ...


You might want to rethink that. A lot of those Captains are virulent homophobes. In fact the repercussions I expect most will be things like slower promotions, extra duty etc. because it is precisely those nominally in charge who are in the best position to retaliate with impunity.

As I remember it, and this is memory from 30 years ago, a Captain in the Navy is equivalent to a Colonel in the other branches. The term Captain is used differently in the Navy as well, any commander of a vessel can properly be referred to as 'Captain' regardless of rank.

When it comes to marriage anyone can perform a marriage ceremony. The marriage is official when the marriage certificate is issued by the state and has nothing to do with the ceremony.


There is some merit in that-- choosing the right leader would take some care.

There's always a civil judge-- who in every state in the Union has the power to marry. If the first judge is squeamish? There's always six more down the hall... we seem to be "blessed" with a plethora of judges...

... which always makes me wonder why trials are so damn back-logged?

++++++++++++

Some states require an "official state representative" to certify the marriage license, for it to be official. But, as I said, typically the issuing bureau has such people on-hand...

... in some of the more enlightened states? All you really need, apart from the license, is a notary.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
Bob of QF wrote:


... which always makes me wonder why trials are so damn back-logged?


Hang out at a courthouse someday and you'll see why. Half the time is spent meeting to set time for yet another meeting.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Bob of QF
seeker wrote:

Bob of QF wrote:


... which always makes me wonder why trials are so damn back-logged?


Hang out at a courthouse someday and you'll see why. Half the time is spent meeting to set time for yet another meeting.


Oh, I know-- it's mostly filled with bullshit.

What really galls me? Is that most of the ahem... "lawyers" not only know each other, but frequently work out the details over golf or cocktails...

... actually happened to us, back in the say... long story, won't bore you with details.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
Why do you suppose that most trials are settled by plea bargain? All the hemming and hawing around makes those backroom deals the most efficient way to resolve matters. I worry though that it gives too much leverage to prosecutors who use the potential of draconian punishment to frighten defendants into plea bargains rather than defending their rights.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Skeeve
seeker wrote:

I worry though that it gives too much leverage to prosecutors who use the potential of draconian punishment to frighten defendants into plea bargains rather than defending their rights.


That's how it works around these parts. I was threatened with a far worse crime, even though I wasn't accused of it or they had any evidence of it. The thought of having to go to trial, in public, and defend against it was a big reason for accepting a plea bargain.

To make it worse, the DA didn't tell me this. My own Public Defender walked into our first meeting and said this. Never asked me anything. Yeah, Justice!
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Theory_Execution
I have avoided the law so far. The bodies of the JoHo's have not started to kick of a stink yet.
 
JohnH
This has drifted a long way from same sex marriage but it has drifted into a subject I am very interested in.

California has many mandatory minimum sentences particularly for drug offenses. Prosecutors will use the treat of a heavier sentence than a lay person might see the actual crime worth to attempt to get low level participants in a crime to rat out the higher level participants. This can often result in a low level participant getting a worse sentence that the higher level participants because the low level participants for personal reasons will not rat out others but the high level ones will.

Or such things as a recently reported case. Please forgive if I do not have all the facts exactly correct. It was in the news only once and that was some weeks ago. The gist was that someone was up for parole for having participated in a crime. Without remembering the exact details he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with a companion who, I think, murdered someone in the course of a robbery. The potential parolee went to court because he felt he was innocent and the police could not prove that he willing participated in the murder, he was convicted. The actual murderer coped a plea and is already out of prison. Parole was denied. Not uncommon in California, I tried to find statistics but could not. I will say that I read far more stories in the press that read to me as inappropriate denial of parole than I read ones about parolee violence.

Then we have the wonderful 3 strikes law. Passed by initiative in 1994 primarily in response to the murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klass by repeat offenders. It is long enough ago that I do not remember how I voted, I do know that the history of Richard Allen Davis, the Klass murderer, had threat to women all over it and I may well have voted for the law. I now very much regret the existence of the law. Prosecutors in California have significant leeway over charges in criminal cases. So in some counties if you have two serious drug convictions and get caught stealing an expensive bicycle you could be facing life. The law was sold as a way to keep violent criminals who are a treat to the public off the streets. Some of the excesses in application were so bad that again by initiative a proposition 36 was passed in 2000, people convicted of drug violations would be subject to treatment rather than 25 to life.

Politicians have become exceedingly afraid to be labeled soft on crime, so not even rational changes to law which reduce sentences or give added protections to perceived criminals can be discussed. And our media consciously or not makes the public believe there is great risk everywhere.

I suspect that I have been the victim of more crime than most. 5 were property crimes, annoying and somewhat violating particularly the thought that some stranger was in your house or uninvited on your property but primarily they were just annoying and with the exception of losing some antiques that belonged to the family it amounted to the loss of some money and not much at that. The time a child, I guessed not older than 13, stuck a gun in my face and took my money was a bit scary. In 65 years not much horror has happened to me or my family, reading the paper or watching TV one can come to the conclusion that danger is everywhere. Even when ones personal experience tells a different story.

So the public becomes willing to believe they are at great risk and forces politicians to pass draconian laws no matter what the actual risk is.

The criminal justice system in this country is so flawed. The use and misuse of plea bargains is only one small part of its flawed nature.
 
Bob of QF
I think it was Franklin who said:

"Those who are willing to trade justice for safety, deserve neither."

And so it goes....
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Theory_Execution
There are a few politicians in the UK trying to get us out of The Human Rights Treaty at the moment - now that would be a right splintered baton up the arse of every law abiding citizen.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Cats with opposable thumbs... Funny Zone 5 03/06/2011 06:58