Rep. Steven Palazzo, R-Miss., wants to accommodate servicemembers who object to open service based on their religious beliefs.
Earlier we noted that Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., plans to introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that would broaden the certifcation requirement for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” We also mentioned another anti-gay amendment from Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., that would prohibit same-sex weddings from being performed in military chapels. Since then, two additional anti-gay amendments have emerged, including one designed to accommodate religion-based homophobia in the armed forces. All of the amendments are expected to be introduced Wednesday when the House Armed Services Committee marks up the Defense Authorization Act. Below is a fact sheet on all four anti-gay amendments from the Human Rights Campaign.
Amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) – Expand Certification
Rep. Hunter is expected to offer an amendment that would expand the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” certification process by requiring certification by the five service chiefs. The process created by the repeal bill passed last year and currently underway requires the Commander-in-Chief, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify that the military is prepared for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the law is removed from the books.
Expanded certification is unnecessary. On December 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “I would not sign any certification until I was satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs that we had, in fact, mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion and effectiveness.” In addition, all of the service chiefs have testified before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that expanded certification is not necessary and that they are very comfortable with their ability to provide military advice to Secretary Gates and have it heard. Finally, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is included in the certification process and serves as an additional voice for all of the service chiefs.
Amendment by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) – Restrict Facilities and Chaplains
Rep. Akin is expected to offer an amendment that would prohibit the use of Department of Defense facilities for marriages between same-sex couples, even where state law permits such marriages. The amendment would also prohibit military chaplains or civilian DOD employees from officiating at such a marriage ceremony.
This amendment is in response to an April 13, 2011 memo from the Chief of Chaplains of the Navy that authorizes use of base facilities for same-sex marriages if a ceremony is being conducted in accordance with the laws of a state which permits same-sex marriages or unions. In addition, the memo authorized chaplains to participate in such marriage ceremonies as long as participation is consistent with the tenets of his or her faith.
This amendment would deny lesbian and gay service members equal access to federal facilities based on sexual orientation. While DOMA prohibits recognition of marriages between same-sex couples under federal laws and regulations, access to a federal facility for a marriage ceremony does not constitute recognition of that marriage by the federal government. The Defense Department opens up certain facilities to service members for a range of religious functions and ceremonies, including weddings, funerals, baptisms, confirmations, and other events. When a facility is made available for such events, individuals who meet all the other requirements for use of such facilities should not be denied access to the facility because of their sexual orientation.
In addition, this amendment would restrict the right of chaplains to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Many chaplains represent faith traditions that celebrate marriages between same-sex couples and prohibiting them from performing such marriages would be an attack on their rights under the First Amendment. Permitting chaplains to voluntarily perform marriages between same-sex couples does not run afoul of DOMA in any way. A military chaplain, even though he or she is a federal employee, simply serving as a marriage officiant, does not constitute federal government recognition of that marriage, just as a chaplain baptizing the child of a service member does not constitute the federal government endorsing the Christian sacrament of baptism. The Navy’s memorandum makes clear that no chaplain is required to perform a same-sex wedding that is inconsistent with his or her religious tradition, but simply ensures that those chaplains who wish to celebrate such weddings are able to do so as part of their duty to provide spiritual support to all service members.
Amendment by Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) – Delay Certification and Raise Unfounded Fears about Religious Freedom
Rep. Palazzo is expected to offer an amendment that would require unnecessary regulations regarding the First Amendment rights of service members who have religious or moral objections to open service by gays and lesbians. In addition, the amendment would delay repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for 90 legislative days beyond the issuance of such regulations.
This amendment is unnecessary. The Pentagon Working Group Report clearly concluded that no additional regulations would be necessary to protect the religious rights of service members. The First Amendment clearly prohibits the military from taking adverse action against service members who hold religious objections to open service by gays and lesbians or to homosexuality in general. While “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal ensures the equal ability to serve, regardless of sexual orientation, this amendment would provide special rights to service members who hold anti-gay views. It requires that the military “accommodate” the beliefs of those service members that “homosexual or bisexual conduct is immoral and/or an inappropriate expression of human sexuality,” creating an unclear but potentially significant burden on our Armed Forces. The First Amendment clearly protects the right of service members – and everyone else – to hold religious beliefs, including that homosexuality is immoral, and forbids retaliatory action for holding such beliefs. This amendment is simply an attempt to inject a false argument – that repeal is about privileging gay and lesbian service members over their comrades who have sincerely held religious objections to gay and lesbian equality – and further delay repeal because of it.
Amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) – Restatement of DOMA
Rep. Hartzler is expected to offer an amendment that would essentially restate that the definition of marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act applies to Defense Department regulations and policies, and suggests that such superfluous language is necessary because “the unique conditions of military service create a heightened need to protect marital and family stability.”
This is amendment is unnecessary. DOMA clearly states that “in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies,” marriage is limited to the union of a man and a woman. Pentagon officials have made clear on numerous occasions that they are bound by the Defense of Marriage Act, as is every other federal agency. This amendment is just another attempt to distract from the question at hand – open service – and further delay repeal by pointlessly injecting the issue of marriage equality into the conversation.
I find this a complete and ridiculous waste of time and money. It saddens me to realize how much ignorance and prejudice there is in our country. It scares me to see how much of this ignorance and prejudice is in our government.
It’s depressing to realize I live in a country of such ignorant people. Gay people already serve in the military and have been doing so forever. How is knowing someone is gay, rather than just suspecting it, a threat to anyone or anything? On what possible basis does creating a second-class existence for gay and lesbian people create a better society? The US is not: a theocracy; a nation reserved for straight people only; realizing its constitutional requirement to treat all citizens equally.
I don’t understnad the issue of Relgious Freedoms, with some churchs pro gay and some anti gay, ify ou go one way or the other you stepping on someones Religious Freedom, so it would be better to leave that in the church, and alow indivuals to do what they choose.
I really don’t care what a person’s sexual preference is, to each it’s own. Furthermore, it is none of my business what a person’s sexual preference is. What I do have a problem with is, this “issue” has become a distraction for more important “issues” that Congress needs to consider and make a priority. There is only ONE way Congress can protect marriage between a man and a woman and that is to pass a Constitutional amendment that would revise Article 4 of the Constituion. Although DOMA states: The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress’ power under the “Effect” clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex “marriage” the DOMA is unconstitutional! People forget that the Constitution supercedes EVERY LAW in EVERY STATE! Congress has never amended Article 4 of the Constitution so DOMA really carries no weight, whatsoever. Again, the Constitution supersedes ANY LAW! The first sentence of Article 4 states: Section 1-Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State and Section 2-The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states. i.e., if you’re licensed in one state, you’re licensed in every state. This plainly spells out that a person is entitled to equal treatment in all aspects regardless of their sexual preference. If you’re married in one state, then you are married in EVERY state.