The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

House passes amendment to prohibit chaplains from performing same-sex marriages on military bases

The House passed Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp’s amendment to the 2012 Department of Defense authorization bill prohibiting military chaplains from performing same-sex marriages Friday morning.

Following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Navy Chief of Chaplains announced that military chaplains would be allowed to perform same-sex marriages. While the Navy has backed away from this assertion, Huelskamp’s amendment would ensure that it not resurface. (Bloomberg to officiate one of New York’s first gay weddings)

Huelskamp’s main concern is that military bases not become a vehicle to “advance a narrow social agenda.”

“I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in order to promote and ensure conformity and uniformity to the military culture, not the other way around; to promote religious liberty of military chaplains; and to promote consistency with federal laws on marriage,” he said.

According to Huelskamp, service members have had to undergo hours of sensitivity training – including warnings that failure to accept gay lifestyles will result in discipline.

Huelskamp fears that chaplains unwilling to perform same-sex marriages will face threats to their careers.

“We must ensure the religious liberty of all military members, particularly that of chaplains,” he said on the House floor Thursday night. “Regardless of how one feels about the policy known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I think we can all agree that instructing military chaplains that they can perform same-sex marriages goes above and beyond this particular law. In fact this directive is not only an overreach of the repeal but also a direct assault on the Defense of Marriage Act.”

The amendment passed 236-184 on the House floor.

Follow Caroline on Twitter

  • brian

    How about congress show some real back bone and ban federal contracts with corporations that fire employees that speak out against gay marriage on their own time. (see Frank Turek)

  • Pingback: FEMA faces House heat for taking over flood insurance policies | outsuranse.co.za

  • Pingback: The “Pope” of the U.S. Navy Lobbies for Gay Marriage | UNCOVERAGE.net

  • Pingback: insurance-ref.com | Blog | FEMA faces House heat for taking over flood insurance policies

  • Pingback: FEMA faces House heat for taking over flood insurance policies | Insurance news latest - The lates news from Insurance, Insurance Quotes, Auto Insurance...

  • Pingback: Readboard Daily :: 08 July 2011 « The Readboard

  • MyChalkLine

    ““We must ensure the religious liberty of all military members, particularly that of chaplains,”

    GOD FORBID WE SHOULD RESPECT THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES OF GAY SOLDIERS OVER RELIGIOUS CIVILIANS

    AFTERALL ISN’T IT ALWAYS THE PRIESTS AND PASTORS AT THE FRONT LINES?

    • Offensive Bias

      Yes!…God Forbid.

      • MyChalkLine

        Tell me are “religion” & “GOD” the same thing?

        Because i haven’t found a “religion” that represents god anywhere.

        ALL people are Gods children, you think he created you to punish what you have decided are his wayward children?

        RESPECT GOD BUT NEVER RELIGION!

        • Offensive Bias

          Wow…your on to something!

  • M Faraday

    Are marriages on military bases common? Do people pay to use the military base to get married?

    Otherwise, if an off duty chaplain wants to marry two goats, its not governments business.

  • MyChalkLine

    Huelskamp’s main concern is that military bases not become a vehicle to “advance a narrow social agenda.”

    Yet he believes he isn’t advancing “a narrow social agenda?”

    Does the military pay for these “chaplains” or their expenses to advance THEIR RELIGIOUS AGENDA?

    if so they seem to be in conflict with the 1st amendment.

    AS FAR AS GAY MILITARY WEDDINGS, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, JUST GET MARRIED CIVIL.

    MORE REASON THESE “chaplains” SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

    OH AND HUELSKAMP SHOULD KNOW A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION WHEN HE SEE’S ONE.

    • Offensive Bias

      Equal protection doesn’t cover homosexuality. It covers former slaves at the time. The framers in 1863 didn’t have “gayness” in mind when putting the 14th amendment together. Only the supreme court brought this issue to every matter by it’s own fiat not in a constitutional way.

      • MyChalkLine

        “Equal protection doesn’t cover homosexuality”

        We will see, won’t we?

        • MyChalkLine

          Oh and i case you’re confused the “FOUNDERS” CLEARLY forbid the application of religion in law. It’s called the first amendment.

          You can believe Homosexuality is new but we’ve had “gayness” long before there was a republic to begin with.

          • MyChalkLine

            “Only the supreme court brought this issue to every matter by it’s own fiat not in a constitutional way.”

            LMAO

            The supreme court is Constitutionally empowered to interpret the Constitution.

          • Offensive Bias

            The supreme court “empowered” itself to interpret the Constitution as the final arbiter. It does not say in the constitution that SCOTUS has the final say.

            This began back in late 1700′s in “Marberry vs. Madison”, the supreme court declared itself that is has the final say on laws which strikes heart at our representative Republic.

            The Constitution does NOT say the supreme court can make up laws, like the right to privacy in the early 70′s which gave excuse to abortion. Now SCOTUS has taken the 14th amendment and twisted as a evolving right that takes it’a meaning away from it’s original intent.

            BTW, SCOTUS ruled slaves are property in the dreadscott case. It ruled in favor of interment camps during WW2. There are few other cases off that I can’t remember but they are not so perfect and yo might think.

            Congress needs to reassert it’s authority so we do not become an oligarchy.

          • MyChalkLine

            LOL
            Article III section 2
            “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme [sic] Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme [sic] Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

          • MyChalkLine

            Marbury “establishes principle of judical review”, a power the court deemed they already had (Constitutionally).

            “Congress needs to reassert it’s authority so we do not become an oligarchy.”

            Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

            “The Constitution does NOT say the supreme court can make up laws, like the right to privacy in the early 70’s which gave excuse to abortion. Now SCOTUS has taken the 14th amendment and twisted as a evolving right that takes it’a meaning away from it’s original intent.”

            make up laws? again they interpret the constitution.
            I understand you dislike their rulings but you can’t supplement your own judgement now can you?

            And i never once claimed the court was imperfect either.

            YOU CAN SPLIT HAIRS ALL YOU LIKE THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE FINAL SAY, LIKE IT OR NOT.

          • MyChalkLine

            BTW Alexander Hamilton wrote,

            “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”