Religious Freedom and Military Chaplains

We've heard a lot of complaints from conservatives that repealing DADT is somehow unfair to military chaplains, as it will prevent them from speaking their beliefs. As the Advocate tells us,

Last week an attorney with the conservative legal group Alliance Defense Fund threatened legal action if Congress does not expressly prohibit same-sex weddings at military chapels or other Defense Department facilities. The legal group has also demanded that military chaplains be barred from performing such ceremonies in their official capacities; allowing them to officiate at same-sex weddings would violate the Defense of Marriage Act, they argue.

But Capt. John F. Gundlach, a retired Navy chaplain and member of the Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, has taken them on.

Chaplains have always had the right to preach according to the tenets of the religious bodies that endorse them — and they still will. Will anti-gay chaplains be forced to conduct same-sex weddings in military chapels? Of course not. They will continue to conduct rites and sacraments as allowed by their religious bodies. And the same principle applies to conducting religious education and pastoral counseling. The one thing that every chaplain is required to do, regardless of their religious perspectives, is care for everyone. If these chaplains can’t minister to gay and lesbian service members themselves, they are obligated to refer them to another chaplain who can.

So where is the threat to religious freedom? And where could their right to free speech be limited? It will no longer be acceptable to speak about fellow gay and lesbian service members in demeaning ways in the workplace and other public settings. The fact that this has ever been acceptable by anyone anywhere, but especially by chaplains, is regrettable. And chaplains from the religious groups who are now demanding protection from discrimination have been some of the worst offenders. They, and others who agree with them, may continue to think and believe what they want, but outside of those areas where their religious speech is protected, they may now have to keep their bigotry to themselves.

I agree that religious freedom is a precious right that we must hold inviolate. It is a right that all service members serve to defend, and which all should be able to enjoy. By all, I mean those who are religiously liberal as well as those who are conservative, and by those who are gay as well as straight. Are ADF and the religious groups they represent as willing to defend the same rights and protections for others they claim for themselves? Are they as willing to acknowledge the right of chaplains from gay-friendly denominations to perform gay weddings in military chapels? And are they as willing to speak up for those who suffer discrimination because they are gay? If not, their pleas for special protection from discrimination for themselves are self-serving and unworthy of consideration.

Incidentally, as you may or may not know, in April the Presiding Bishop joined with a group of retired chaplains and other churches in a Friends of the Court (amicus) brief in the ongoing DADT case, which argued that continuing DADT infringes on the religious liberty of those who are supportive of LGBT people. The Presiding Bishop said the Episcopal Church

“has a long history of supporting the inclusion and fair treatment of gay and lesbian persons within the Church and in society. That position extends to the right of such persons to serve this country, openly and with pride, in all of its many offices and positions, including service in our Armed Forces. The Church’s interest in [this case] stems in significant part from the Church’s extensive experience with endorsing male and female members of the Church’s ordained clergy for service as chaplains to members of the Armed Forces in this country and abroad, in peace-time and in conflict, in battle and behind the lines.”

The normalization, and moralization, of Teh Gay

A couple of different commentators have responded to the DADT repeal by thinking of what this may change about society's general views of homosexuality and sexual morality.

First, Gabriel Arana, in The American Prospect, sees this as a normalization of the gay identity.

The true fight has been about what it means to say, "I am gay" -- whether the affirmation is cause for social -- and in the military, literal -- ostracism and exclusion or whether it's a neutral means of describing yourself.

....To religious conservatives, allowing gay people to say who they are is a dire threat to society and the military. … Allowing service members to know their gay colleagues is so threatening to religious conservatives because, as studies have shown, actually knowing a gay person is the best predictor of how one views homosexuality. Once service members can utter the words "I am gay" without an official state sanction, the culture-war battle has largely been won.

Sounds nice, kinda like the HRC representative who was quoted as saying

"If you can fight and die for your country, there's absolutely no reason why you can't be granted the full set of rights" that others have, including the ability to marry a same-sex partner….Americans will deduce that on their own. We won't have to say a thing."

(Keep thinking those happy thoughts, which are yet another example of the disconnect of the HRC from reality. But I digress).

I think it's too simplistic to assume that the awareness of LGB people in the military will make the entire LGBT community somehow validated. It's not all going to get better instantly. It'll help, sure, but it's not enough just to normalize Teh Gay. We are arguing to MORALIZE Teh Gay.

Writing in Slate, Will Saletan tackles this, beginning with confronting the slippery slope argument. We have to "de-sex" who we are, to distinguish this battle from a general loosening of sexual morality.

Shouldn't someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister?

Laugh or snort if you want to, but it's a serious question. If DADT repealers are correct that sex is a matter of personal liberty and it doesn't matter "who you love," why shouldn't that defense cover polyamory and sibling couples? Switzerland is proposing to drop its incest law on exactly this basis. …

You can argue that homosexuality is quite different. But to make that case, you have to go beyond privacy and consent. You have to draw moral distinctions. Homosexuality isn't just a matter of who you love. It's a matter of who you are. And it's compatible with traditional sexual values.

The conservative assumption about homosexuality, freely vented in the DADT debate, is that it's a "behavior" and "lifestyle." But nobody who's gay experiences it that way. You don't choose to be gay. You just are gay. …

If homosexuality is an orientation rather than a preference or choice—if it's a matter of who you are, not who you love—then it's detachable from other kinds of sexual deviance. In fact, it isn't deviant. A gay person can be just as faithful and monogamous as a straight person. And military rules of sexual propriety can apply just the same….

If the fall of DADT is ultimately interpreted this way—as a rethinking of homosexuality, not of sexual morals generally—it won't satisfy libertines or libertarians. But culturally, it might prove easier to digest. Is homosexuality about who you love or who you are? That debate, unresolved by the fight over DADT, will rage on.

I agree with Saletan. I don't think that the LGBT community should be reduced to a sex act. The conservatives constantly attack us with participating in a "if it feels good, do it" hypersexualized culture. But that's not what I'm fighting for. I'm actually quite conservative on issues of sexual morality, which is why the fight for MARRIAGE matters.

(A further take-down of the "slippery slope" argument is here, which distinguishes the potential harm and societal benefits of each. Worth a read.)

What do you think?

Cross posted at Gay Married Californian

DADT consigned to history--almost.

I haven't talked about the DADT repeal here, which will allow LGB service members to be open about who they are. (Transgenders are in a different category, militarily speaking, and are not covered by DADT nor by the repeal).

As the NY Times noted, the Defense Dept plan for repeal (PDF) was released at the same time as the survey of the troops, to little attention. It makes it clear that there is a plan for implementation that has thought through the common concerns. The theme is Leadership-Professionalism-Respect.

Regarding religious freedom:

Service members are not expected to change their personal religious or moral beliefs; however, they are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service.

Service members do not have the right to refuse duty or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another’s sexual orientation.

Service members remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs. As expressed in the Manual for Courts-Martial regarding a Service member’s obligation to obey orders: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order .”

Those who disagree:

The views and beliefs of those who are opposed to “open” service by gays and lesbians on well-founded moral or religious grounds are not being rejected, and leaders have not turned their backs on them. We do not expect individual Service members to change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality, but we do expect every Service member to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist in each Service.

Chaplains:

The Service should reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must continue to care for all Service members, and that evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains will remain consistent with these long-standing principles.

What about sexual behavior?

Service standards of conduct must be sexual orientation neutral. All members are responsible for upholding and maintaining the high standards of the U S military at all times and in all places.

And those benefits...

The Defense of Marriage Act and current benefit laws do not allow the Department of Defense to extend many key benefits—including dependent medical coverage, dependent-rate BAH, and dependent-based travel and transportation allowances—to a Service member in a relationship with a same-sex partner …

For the time being, all Service members not in a Federally-recognized marriage will be treated as “single” for the purposes of benefits eligibility. The Department of Defense is studying ways to extend additional benefits to Service members to improve personal readiness, especially during deployments and other stressful times.

Of course, the backlash has begun:

• Mitch McConnell tried to block the repeal with a poison amendment to the Defense bill.
• A Virginia state Delegate wants to bar gays from the Virginia National Guard (what do we expect from the State of Hate?)
• And several antigay groups pledge to repeal the repeal.

As many pundits have noted, having gays serve openly in the military will scuttle many of the arguments the opposition has used to keep us demonized as "the other." It's a big crack in the wall of "normalcy." And it's hard to see how DOMA can last if a brave lieutenant can't have benefits for his legal husband.

Still, expect the shrill hysteria to get louder before it gets better. And of course, the repeal may be signed, but DADT is still the law until it is "certified" properly. That could take months or longer. LGB servicemembers will continue in the closet till then.

Photo from NY Times

Military chaplains and DADT

From the WaPo, describing the Pentagon's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) report.

[N]o group had such strong - or sharply divergent - views as the military's 3,000 chaplains, who provide spiritual guidance to the men and women in uniform.

The debate highlights the delicate position of the chaplains, who must balance the demands of their faiths with the reality of a diverse military. ...

The authors of the report noted that only three out of the 145 chaplains who participated in focus groups suggested that they would quit or retire if the law were changed. Many chaplains expressed opposition to a repeal, while many others said they would not object, according to the report.

"In the course of our review, we heard some chaplains condemn in the strongest possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual," the report stated. "In equally strong terms, other chaplains, including those who also believe homosexuality is a sin, informed us that 'we are all sinners,' and that it is a chaplain's duty to care for all Service members."

Read that again: chaplains stated they would refuse to support or assist a gay person, simply because they are gay. Putative men of God. I find that disgusting.

...The report's authors wrote that the opposition was not insurmountable, arguing that "the reality is that in today's U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions - including those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not - and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live and fight together on a daily basis."

The assertion drew a sharp rebuke from Christian groups....

How could they rebuke it? It's TRUE. At this point, it's worth reminding readers that there is a real problem with right-wing Christianity in the military, especially in the Air Force.

The WaPo article concludes,

Those who advocate in favor of repeal say that the ranks of chaplains are much more conservative than the rank and file and that their opinions should not prevent a change in policy.

"The U.S. military is not a religious institution. It is a civilian government organization," said the Rev. John Gundlach, a retired captain and Navy chaplain. "My position on this is, if they can't handle this change, they're in the wrong ministry setting."

Too bad this degree of rationality isn't on display in Washington.

The hearings concluded with a divergent set of views from the military brass, a clear preference for legislative over judicial action, and one statement that they were unanimous on: if the law changes, they'll enforce it.

Prophetic voices, prophetic faces

You may not be following the kerfuffle around the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't tell (DADT) in the current defense bill. Here are a few facts.

1) President Obama (the Fierce Advocate) said in his State of the Union address that DADT should be repealed.
2) General Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees.
3) So do 70% of Americans
4) Republicans in Congress are upset, and instead of repeal, put a statement in the Defense Appropriations Bill that says there should be a study. The Defense Appropriations bill has a not-quite-repeal provision that calls for a study.
5) The Pentagon had a study, and finds that (surprise!) 70% of military folk agree with repeal. (Aside: this agrees with our experience. My stepdaughter has dated a number of young men in the Marines or in the Navy who have said to a one that yes, they have gay comrades, and who cares?)
6) Sen John McCain promises to filibuster to prevent the Defense Appropriations Bill and its not-quite-repeal, and Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, might eliminate this provision from the bill

Yesterday, a group of activists including veterans Dan Choi and Autumn Sandeen, chained themselves to the White House fence in protest of the lack of Fierce Advocating.

I want to point out to you Fr Geoff Farrow, who was relieved of his duties as an RC priest in California when he refused to "toe the line" supporting Prop8. Fr Geoff was arrested too. Look at that picture.

Prophetic voice?

H/T my cousin Julie who posted this on FB and this site for this amazing photo

Judge orders lesbian AF nurse reinstated

From Reuters

A former U.S. Air Force flight nurse expelled from the military after revealing she is a lesbian was ordered reinstated by a federal judge on Friday in a closely watched court challenge to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Major Margaret Witt in contesting her dismissal, has said that if returned to the service, she would be the first person to lawfully serve openly in the U.S. military as a homosexual.

More at CNN

Judge: Military's ban on gays unconstitutional

From Episcopal Café

The Washington Post reports that "a federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional."
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.