Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Navy Pushes Back On Homosexual "Marriages" in Naval Chapels

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Chief of Naval Chaplains, Admiral Michael Tidd recently announced he was revising Tier I training manuals which had previously indicated that same sex "marriages" were not allowed on federal properties.

His office had decided that same-sex couples in the Navy would now be able to get "married" in Navy chapels and that Navy chaplains could perform the ceremony---if homosexual "marriage" is legal in the state where the unions were to be performed.

The Admiral said that naval bases are now, "generally speaking--sexual orientation neutral."

Rep. Todd Akin, R-MO., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, immediately raised concerned that in its haste to "hustle in homosexuality," the Navy may be violating federal law---the Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA).

I don't want to say "I told you so", but many of us were saying that among the several consequences of scrapping the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be an open door for homosexual activists to, in the words of Rep. Akin, "hustle in homosexuality."

Myself and others were summarily dismissed and mocked when we raised that issue.

Admiral Tidd had heard the call and was hustling. Rep Duncan Hunter, R-Cal., also announced he would offer an amendment to the annual defense bill to require that all of the chiefs of the armed forces---not just the chairman---would have to submit certification that removing the military ban on homosexuality wouldn't harm unit cohesion and military order.

Late yesterday afternoon, the Navy pushed back.

Just because the President has dismissed DOMA, and refuses to defend it even though it is law, apparently doesn't mean the President nor those whom he commands are above the law. Their discretion does not determine what is and what is not law.

Now, the Navy says they are rescinding Tidds directive because, "Legal council determined that a more through review was required."

Is this a victory? Not really. But it is a very loud statement from those who join 5000 years of history, biblical virtue and common sense in saying marriage is only between one man and one woman.

These are perilous times---our culture hangs in the balance. The next generation is at risk.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Of Good Courage. We Shall Overcome.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox


  1. "The next generation is at risk."

    From your perspective, yes. There's a great risk they will judge you and your followers as practitioners of ugly religious bigotry.

    It's lucky for the surviving generations of those who opposed equal rights for blacks back in the 60's that written records of their bigotry weren't that common.

    Today, however, every word you write is being cataloged for easy reference from any internet portal.

    The next generation will have no choice but to see you for what you are. History will not view you kindly.

  2. Actually, this is a perfect example of the blatant discrimination inflicted on gay couples due to DOMA, and it will likely hasten its repeal.

    DOMA "allows" the federal government to deny some couples with a legal marriage license all federal recognition and benefits. That means, even though gay couples have a legally binding marriage license in hand, they cannot collect on their deceased spouse's social security, they cannot sponsor their foreign-born husband and/or wife for citizenship, they must pay hefty federal taxes on their spouse's share of their "estate" upon death, and they are alternately recognized and married and strangers as they travel across the country.

    Such blatant discrimination is un-American, to say the least, regardless of your opinion of same-sex marriages. In the courts -- and in the court of public opinion -- these fights give people real-life examples of the harm DOMA inflicts upon gay people, and it's swaying opinion in our direction.

  3. Neutral?...Is that akin to indifferent?

    I looked up the word indifferent in my dictionary. It's used in several ways.

    The first definition speaks a bit about having or showing no partiality, bias, or preference.

    I think having no partiality is good for people who are willing to do the work of reconciliation between two parties, such a counselor, but the definitons for indiffernt go on.

    People in high ranking positions in the nation's military or government, as well as those who serve in ministry positions concerning religious matters, can not afford to have or show no interest or concern, regarding the things of God.

    I don't think a man should drive a car that way. Is a man even safe walking down the street with that kind of attitude?

    I dare say that if many people in this nation are in important positions, or if their numbers are large, isn't this nation in peril?

    If a man has an indifferent attitude toward God and the things of God, what about prayers, blessings, prosperity, protection against one's enemies, happiness, joy, peace, or a good future?

    God is writing His story isn't he? Though his story has been written, that is the gospel, the good news of Christ, are we not a part of it?

    I think all of us take part in it one way or another, some to listen to him, suffer with him and learn obedience, while others....?

    As we live, shouldn't we consider what kind of message we are writing? Shouldn't we think that the books will be opened one day?

    If you are not happy about what your story is looking like, or if you have some concern about your eternal future, whether you will burn in hellfire forever because you worked to tear down everything God was for and building, the good news is that if a man comes to Christ according to the way that those who will be saved will come to him, he will not refuse them.

    He will be their savior and Lord. He will save them from the judgment to come. He will save them from the destruction of that which is contrary to him.

    Since man has been contrary to God, an impending end has been put in place unto all men, for sin has brought death and the sentence of it upon all, for all have sinned.

    The good news is that Jesus is willing and able to save those that will come to him his way, repenting of their sins, putting their trust in God by him.

    Are you willing?

  4. The issue is more complex - the first amendment severely restricts what the government can do regarding religion, and it most certainly can't prefer one religion over another in our military. Christian churches extend the rite of marriage to same gender couples - how can the feds prevent anyone from performing such a service or denying a servicemember the right to do so? The eventual answer will be they can't, all they can do is what DOMA says: they won't subsequently legally recognize it - but they can't selectively interfere with it from occurring a a jurisdiction where its legal without violating the first amendment.

    And as far as chaplains, they are the military equivalent of 'spiritual medics' - they are there to treat the spiritual needs of all military personnel regardless of their own beliefs, That doesn't mean they have to perform any direct service but they are obligated find someone who will. A catholic chaplain will find someone to marry the divorced service member, the evangelical chaplain will help find a coven for the unit Wiccan or its Muslim, or its Mormon. They are there to facilitate the spiritual needs of the soldier - if they can't do that then they aren't cut out to be a chaplain.

    This is just a temporary halt, it won't matter what sneaker riders they put on any bill - they can't interfere with the legal religious practices of service members and any attempt to do so will fail as long as the first amendment stays in place.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.