Chaplains allowed to perform same-sex marriages
On Friday the Defense Department decided to allow military chaplains to perform same-sex unions, whether on or off a military installation, but only in states that have already legally recognized gay marriage. The ruling, announced by the Pentagon’s personnel chief, follows the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“It is outrageous that only 10 days after repeal of the law against homosexuality in the Armed Forces, the Defense Department is already pushing the military further down the slippery slope,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in a statement.
The Pentagon issued guidelines on the proceedings, but said military chaplains are not required to perform a ceremony if doing so goes against their religious or personal beliefs.
Military Chaplains Association’s spokesman Gary Pollitt told The Washington Post, “Regardless of the Pentagon guidance, military chaplains will still need to take cues from their religious order.”
Some members of Congress have objected to military chaplains performing same-sex unions, saying it would violate the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The Pentagon also says Defense Department property may be used for private functions, including religious and other ceremonies such as same-sex unions, as long as state or local laws do not prohibit it.
Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund said, “This is unique in American history where you have military policy at odds with the belief system of the chaplains that they rely on.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top40 Comments to “Chaplains allowed to perform same-sex marriages”
One has to wonder how long it will be before they are required to rather than allowed to.
Report comment to moderator
Federal Marriage Amendment, anyone?
Report comment to moderator
Hetero couples routinely get assigned to the same units. I guess now gay couples will have that same option.
If the idea is to discourage entry into the military, this new policy will succeed beyond the wildest expectations of the Code Pink ladies who protest outside recruiter offices
Report comment to moderator
Are chaplains allowed to perform same-sex marriages for three brave consenting adults? Four? Eight? How about marriages for “couragelous” consenting adults who are deeply in love with both a man and a woman and require polyamorous marriages to meet their needs for true happiness? How about allowing a loving man to marry two women–all “brave” consenting adults who are deeply in love and need each other desperately!?
Report comment to moderator
Why all the militaristic brutal and bigoted discrimination against gay triples and quadruples???? Why aren’t they specifically allowed to marry???
The U.S. military is obviously a bigoted institution through and through.
Report comment to moderator
Why should anyone be shocked that this would happen in a homosexualist institution like the U.S. military?
Report comment to moderator
Well I was right again. It is not going to stop here the Pentagon will be force to surrender more to the GLBT Community, in order to meet their needs and desires… To avoid the threats of Law Suites
Report comment to moderator
The next’s step will be the assult on the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund said, “This is unique in American history where you have military policy at odds with the belief system of the chaplains that they rely on.”
—
Not all Chaplains.
Report comment to moderator
Which makes me wonder…
Should a Chaplain or Minister be REQUIRED to marry ANYONE?
Report comment to moderator
#10 – Of course not, but chaplains may be subject to punishments (just like photographers are already in some places) for turning down a wedding request on a basis that some may perceive as either disagreement with the religion of homosexualism or opposition to homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
If a Chaplain says no, an it gets reported. He could find himself being order to do ther services by those who are above him. They will order in a way that he must obey it.
Report comment to moderator
I was in the Army for 8 years, I was a Christian the last 4 years. I worked hand and hand with the Chaplains and watch them get a lot of pressure from those above them to look the other way or pressure to approve things.
Report comment to moderator
Many locations have only one Chaplain, pressure will be applied to go along. Promotions will be affected! Chaplain will be leaving the services and only libral chaplians that DO NOT preach the word will be left.
Report comment to moderator
We will have to pray that they will have the courage of the Iranian man on trial.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER, good point. That courageous Iranian Christian on trial for his life is apparently less concerned about his phisical life than many other other Christian clergy and chaplains are concerned with their salaries and benefits. If the shoe fits. . . . And if not, dont’ wear it. The crucial question: Can you be bought by something besides the price Jesus paid on the cross?
Report comment to moderator
This seems like such a no-brainer it’s not even worthy of comment. If a chaplain is stationed in a state that has legalized same-sex marriage and is licensed by that state to perform marriages, why should the military (and by extension the federal government) forbid him from acting in this capacity in that particular state?
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS,
Because it is morally wrong and dishonest, that’s why.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a former Chaplain (22 yrs). Chaplains serve according to the beliefs/confessions of their endorsing agency. The commander cannot order a chaplain to violate his/her faith – personally I would consider it an “unlawful order.” However, there are other ways to punish chaplains who do not toe the line; bad ratings is the chief method, which leads to no promotions,which leads to discharge.
Report comment to moderator
Ivan, that’s also what I was told by a retired OPC chaplain. Of all the things to pray about in these matters, we can’t forget that military chaplains also need prayer. Amen.
Report comment to moderator
At the Sept. 22 Republican primary debate, the candidates remained silent when the crowd booed a homosexual and homosexualist soldier who admitted he intentionally and blatantly lied in 2010 about his homosexuality and then asked a question of the candidates apparently about whether they would countinue to make him lie to stay in the military.
Later, at a gay-rights rally, Obama said, “You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient,” Obama continued, “We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens.”
I happen to think that immoral leftists and homosexualists like Obama are indeed more vocal and outspoken defending their immorality and their anti-family homosexualist agenda than the right is at opposing them or at supporting genuine family principles. Thus, for reasons that differ from Obama’s reasons, I stand with the President in general to criticize the right for being so weak, silent and enemic on this crucial topic that impacts our culture and especially our children for the worse.
Senator Santorum did speak out in reply and God bless him. But I do wish he had simply told the soldier that lying is wrong and he should stand for truth whatever the consequences, not just when it is safe. But homosexualists just don’t think or act that way.
Report comment to moderator
After lecturing the Republicans about speaking out even when it is not politically convenient, of course Obama stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriage, which he has said he is against. Regarding coming out to support same-sex marriage (which Obama has not done becuase it would be politically inconvenient), Doug Hattaway, a Democrat consultant, said, “If he doesn’t, he could be missing an opportunity to mobilize voters who need to be inspired to vote for him.”
Of course, it is all about votes. Some believe political considerations could keep Obama from publicly backing gay marriage until after the November 2012 election.
Hypocrite Obama lectures again.
Report comment to moderator
So the military (without any mandate from the executive or legislative branches) should contravene state law? “Hey Chaplain, even though the State of New York authorizes you to marry to women, we say you can’t.” I’m guessing that would be immediately litigated and I can’t imagine a court ruling int he military’s favor.
Report comment to moderator
The military will not be able to keep peace here now that, as even BUDDYGLASS seems to know, homosexualists will surely rush to litigate anything and everything they don’t like “immediately” to suit their agenda, preferences and self-will. The military once had a mission beyond the realm of personal preferences and individual self-will but they have placed that mission behind litigation fears, sexual proclivities, pleasing homosexualists at every turn, sexual identities, redefining marriage itself, further social engineering, selfish posturing and continued lying (the claim that homosexuality or heterosexuality or transgenderism or bisexuality or multi-sexuality is “who you are” is indeed a self-cheapening lie).
The U.S. military has lost its mission and its honor.
Report comment to moderator
When you have no morality, legalism is all that is left.
And I do mean “left.”
Report comment to moderator
At #24, I mean “peace” only in a general sense, including peace of mind and heart. I do not necessarily think the conflicts the homosexualists will continue to seek through litigation or other means of divisive strife need to lead to any physically violent responses (and I hope it won’t), but only that conflicts of heart, mind, mission and meaning in life will rise unnecessarily in the military and in a further fractured America.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, until DOMA is no longer the law of the land, I think all employees of the federal government (including those in the military) should adhere to it rather than ‘contravene’ it by acting contrary to it. The state law is not contravened by a chaplain’s refusal to marry homosexuals since no state requires ministers to marry homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
It’s the end of the world as we know it.
Next cats and dogs will fraternize and then there will be Armageddon because the homosexualists are bad warriors! (Except for Alexander the Great, there’s always an exception, oh and the Spartans, ok, two exceptions.)
But never mind there will be Armaggedon (after a hard right Christian wins election and declares war on Iran, Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Egypt … and somehow they take exception, how dare they?)
K, for all of you who have ever thought you were being mocked, see above, that’s what mocking is.
Normally I am respectful on this sight. But what I read above does not warrant respect.
Any questions?
Report comment to moderator
“It’s the end of the world as we know it.”
Perhaps, eventually. But the world as we know it is always changing. Let’s be more specific. What such things as this are putting a too hasty end to is the family as conceived and formed by God. Children suffer the most from this. This makes the world a less safe and healthy place for children while making it more and more selfish, confusing and divisive–unnecessarily. Increasingly fewer and fewer children will grow up in a home with their mother and father together (among other social pathologies on the rise).
Report comment to moderator
until DOMA is no longer the law of the land, I think all employees of the federal government (including those in the military) should adhere to it rather than ‘contravene’ it by acting contrary to it. The state law is not contravened by a chaplain’s refusal to marry homosexuals since no state requires ministers to marry homosexuals.
Joel is not arguing here that chaplains should refuse to marry same-sex couples. On that count we agree; a correct understanding of biblical truth should compel one to decline to perform such ceremonies.
What Joel is arguing is that military leadership should forbid its chaplains from performing these ceremonies even in states where they are legal.
It’s not clear to me how allowing chaplains (who so choose) to officiate same-sex marriages violates the DOMA.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS, it was DEBRA who made the excellent point to which you were responding.
As for me, I do argue that chaplains should refuse to marry same-sex couples. In fact, honest Christian chaplains have no other option but to refuse. I am arguing that if chaplains can do same-sex marriages for couples, then why not triples and quintuples? Or polyamorous groups of consenting adults who claim to be in love? The “if” is the operative word here.
It’s all such nonsense. For a chaplain who respects God and His word (Matthew 19:4-6, for one), marriage is the union of one man and one woman, period.
To marry a same-sex couple or triple is to violate one’s ministry in the extreme as well as violate the law as signed by Clinton (the Defense of Marriage law). Obama is willfully disrespecting that law and flaunting it. That’s wrong. Chaplains should respect God’s law first and America’s laws after that. The DOMA law presumes and/or defines marriage as a union one man and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
it was DEBRA who made the excellent point to which you were responding.
The text I quoted in post #30 was from Debra, yes. She was responding to what I wrote in #23, which was itself a response to your post #18. In that post, #18, you answered the rhetorical question I asked in #17, which was:
Your answer was:
Note that the question wasn’t, “Why shouldn’t a chaplain marry a same-sex couple,” but, “Why should the military forbid a chaplain from marrying a same-sex couple, assuming he’s stationed in a state that has legalized same-sex marriage.”
I do argue that chaplains should refuse to marry same-sex couples.
So do I. I do not, however, maintain that military leadership should forbid them in situations where it would otherwise be legal. That seems to be something you support.
To marry a same-sex couple … is to violate … the law as signed by Clinton (the Defense of Marriage law).
How so? As far as I can tell the DOMA has two parts:
1. No state has to recognize a same-sex marriage just because some other state recognizes them, and
2. For all federal laws and regulations that use the term “marriage” it is defined as “one man and one woman”.
For a chaplain to marry a same-sex couple in a state that has legalized same-sex marriage doesn’t seem like it runs afoul of either portion.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS, let me restate your “if” question: If a chaplain is stationed in a state that has legalized same-sex marriage beweeen siblings or adult parent/child consenting adults , polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage and is licensed by that state to perform marriages, why should the military … forbid him from acting in this capacity …?
In other words, anything goes with mangling marriage if they are consenting adults in love with each other, right?
Report comment to moderator
How ever the legalists and homose4xualists twist and distort the matter betweeen contradictory fedreal and state laws and abusive activist leftist judges, the Christian chaplain must obey God first. If however, their pension, job, status, money, popularity or their President is their god, then they might do same-sex couple and triple and quadruple marriages and self-righteously call themselves courageous and innovative.
If a chaplain is stationed in a state that has legalized same-sex marriage and is licensed by that state to perform marriages, they he should fight this perverion with all he has through preaching, counseling and any other avenue that can call a sinner to repentance. Or get out of that a corrupt and dishonorable institution completely.
BUDDYGLASS, my aswer that it is morally wrong and dishonest applies either way. The military should forbid a chaplain from marrying a same-sex couples, triples, and quds regardless of what state legislators or activist jusges do.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, anything goes with mangling marriage if they are consenting adults in love with each other, right?
In other words, the military shouldn’t be arbitrarily forbidding its chaplains to serve in an otherwise completely legal capacity.
See, I don’t think the military should be acting as enforcers of morality. You do.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS, your rhetoric about force and enforcing is your spin and your spin simply does not apply to my comments which speak for themselves. Still, you do seem to want the military to be FORCED to recognize and accept a particular sexual lifestyle (homosexuality) in active practice and to submit to the homosexual agenda applied to the military, by force of law, do you not?
Regardless of your legal and political views, can you not see that any chaplain ministering in the name of God (the Christian God) must put God first above any legalistic sexual mandate or governmental policies and follow God first, regardless of the consequences of acting in good conscience? My point is that chaplains must follow God first. Sadly, this means that an honoest Christian chaplain may not be able to serve AT ALL in the US military.
Report comment to moderator
Still, you do seem to want the military to be FORCED to recognize and accept a particular sexual lifestyle
No. Any member of the military is free to “not accept” homosexuality, whatever that means, including the definition is “view as sin”. I do want the military to not arbitrarily discriminate against service members on the basis of their sexual preference.
can you not see that any chaplain ministering in the name of God (the Christian God) must put God first above any legalistic sexual mandate or governmental policies and follow God first, regardless of the consequences of acting in good conscience?
Yes I can see that. Which is why I said as much in posts #30 and #32.
My point is that chaplains must follow God first.
That is one of your points. The other is that military leadership should forbid all its chaplains from performing same-sex marriages in situations where it would otherwise be legal to do so. That is an entirely separate point.
this means that an honoest Christian chaplain may not be able to serve AT ALL in the US military.
It may yet come to that, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS dodges the point when he said; “‘Any member of the military is free to “not accept’ homosexuality, whatever that means, including the definition is ‘view as sin’.”
We are not really talking about “any member of the military.” We are talking about the enforced policy of the entire military as a whole. Let’s stop shifting the sands around and mincing words.
BUDDYGLASS wrote to me; “That is one of your points. The other is that military leadership should forbid all its chaplains from performing same-sex marriages in situations where it would otherwise be legal to do so.”
Right, and that also is just ONE of my points. I also think the military should not allow chaplains to perform same-sex marriages for triples, quadruples and quintuples. I also think they should not allow chaplains to perform “marriages” for polygamists, and polyamorists and incestuous marriages. All these will be coming down the pipe and some are here already (but not given the public respect and attention that the media randomly give to homosexualists)
Report comment to moderator
We are not really talking about “any member of the military.” We are talking about the enforced policy of the entire military
Alright. Yes, I support forcing the military to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination against homosexuals.
I also think the military should not allow chaplains to perform same-sex marriages for triples, quadruples and quintuples.
Yeah. We disagree here. I don’t think the military should be telling its chaplains what they can do in their religious services, short of “don’t break military or civilian law”. In the case of performing triple marriages, they should feel free. Albeit with the knowledge that such marriages aren’t recognized by any state, so the ceremony would be purely symbolic and lack any real legal force.
Report comment to moderator
We live in unusually selfish and evil times.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!