Same-sex weddings in US Navy

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Navy plan to allow same-sex marriage on bases draws opposition - CNN.com

With the end of DADT in sight, the US navy is making plans to allow same-sex marriages on navy bases where state and local laws allow.
Those opposed are invoking DoMA, and DoMA still prevents any benefits for same-sex spouses. It will be interesting to see how the house of cards of bigotry will fall, and how many will fight it to the bitter end.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Military bases are Federal Property, not sure about all National Guard posts, so state and local laws are not applicable on them, only Federal laws and the Federal government won't touch this.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Military bases are Federal Property, not sure about all National Guard posts, so state and local laws are not applicable on them, only Federal laws and the Federal government won't touch this.

Other than DoMA, marriage is a state's issue. They'll allow the ceremonies on bases in states where SSM is recognized.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How can they when state laws don't apply to military bases?

Where would the couple go to get the marriage license? Since there is no federal institution that does this, they would have to go to a state (or county or city) institution. A license would only be valid in the state in which it was issued, so this is only an issue in states that permit SSM.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Where would the couple go to get the marriage license? Since there is no federal institution that does this, they would have to go to a state (or county or city) institution. A license would only be valid in the state in which it was issued, so this is only an issue in states that permit SSM.

So it really has nothing to do with the Navy or military in general.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
How do you get that something happening on a Navy base, by Navy personnel, officiated by Navy chaplains has nothing to do with the Navy or military in general?

Because it makes no sense. A Naval base is Federal ground, a marriage there wouldn't apply to the state. And with that, if married by a Chaplain you still have to apply for a marriage certificate through which ever state you you are being married in. I'm not sure how those laws work, but normally it is the state you are a citizen of.

I'm pretty sure a Chaplain can still refuse the service. So really all it comes down to is the Navy will allow all groups to use its facilities. There is no policy change there.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Because it makes no sense. A Naval base is Federal ground, a marriage there wouldn't apply to the state. And with that, if married by a Chaplain you still have to apply for a marriage certificate through which ever state you you are being married in. I'm not sure how those laws work, but normally it is the state you are a citizen of.

I'm pretty sure a Chaplain can still refuse the service. So really all it comes down to is the Navy will allow all groups to use its facilities. There is no policy change there.

It's your posts that make no sense. Thanks not bothering to read the article in the OP and hijacking a thread.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Because it makes no sense. A Naval base is Federal ground, a marriage there wouldn't apply to the state. And with that, if married by a Chaplain you still have to apply for a marriage certificate through which ever state you you are being married in. I'm not sure how those laws work, but normally it is the state you are a citizen of.

I'm pretty sure a Chaplain can still refuse the service. So really all it comes down to is the Navy will allow all groups to use its facilities. There is no policy change there.

It's your posts that make no sense. Thanks not bothering to read the article in the OP.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's your posts that make no sense. Thanks not bothering to read the article in the OP.

The article states exactly what I am saying. Being Federal property state laws don't apply there, so until there is a Federal law legalizing same sex marriage a marriage on a military base isn't official. So I'm just interested in how this legally plays out.

I'm getting a 'gay' brief from my commander this weekend about Army policy towards it, so I'll see what they have to say there.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Guys - isn't the point of the article that the Navy is attempting to make concessions to ensure they are not withholding certain privileges from same-sex military members who wish to be married by a uniformed chaplain?

That there are complications with DoMA and military bases being federal installations is exactly the point. [That there are a fair amount of Congressmen willing to co-sign the complaint to the Secretary of the Navy is not unexpected, but disappointing all the same.] Socially, the military is saying, we're ready to implement the repeal of DADT and accept gay and lesbian servicemembers and extend the same privileges to them that other servicemembers enjoy. Legally, the military continues, we still have some issues. This is how social change inserts itself into culture and laws.

Think about this: women got the right to vote in the United States when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920... but it took until 1963 for the concept of equal pay to be enshrined in law and it wasn't until 2009 -- nearly 50 years later -- that the right for women to sue over a wage gap was made possible with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed into law by President Obama. This is social change at a glacial pace, but the important thing is that it begins with a first step.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Guys - isn't the point of the article that the Navy is attempting to make concessions to ensure they are not withholding certain privileges from same-sex military members who wish to be married by a uniformed chaplain?
...

Exactly. As their about face shows, continuing the bigotry of DoMA requires accepting contradictions. As rights are recognized (e.g., by ending DADT), those contradictions become more evidently absurd.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Think about this: women got the right to vote in the United States when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920... but it took until 1963 for the concept of equal pay to be enshrined in law and it wasn't until 2009 -- nearly 50 years later -- that the right for women to sue over a wage gap was made possible with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed into law by President Obama. This is social change at a glacial pace, but the important thing is that it begins with a first step.

Well said. :cool222:
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,167
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The Navy is walking this one back:
Navy Same-Sex Unions Decision Reversed Under Pressure From House Lawmakers


WASHINGTON -- Under pressure from more than five dozen House lawmakers, the Navy late Tuesday abruptly reversed its decision that would have allowed chaplains to perform same-sex unions if the Pentagon decides to recognize openly gay military service later this year.
In a one-sentence memo obtained by The Associated Press, Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, said his earlier decision has been "suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination."


Navy Same-Sex Unions Decision Reversed Under Pressure From House Lawmakers
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
The Navy is walking this one back:
Navy Same-Sex Unions Decision Reversed Under Pressure From House Lawmakers


WASHINGTON -- Under pressure from more than five dozen House lawmakers, the Navy late Tuesday abruptly reversed its decision that would have allowed chaplains to perform same-sex unions if the Pentagon decides to recognize openly gay military service later this year.
In a one-sentence memo obtained by The Associated Press, Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, said his earlier decision has been "suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination."


Navy Same-Sex Unions Decision Reversed Under Pressure From House Lawmakers

I suspect the move may have been a trial balloon. Unfortunate, but not unexpected.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I sincerely would like to find out who the 63 House members who tried to make this an issue. That way we'll know exactly who to call out for their ignorance.

I would bet the majority of the signatories are Republicans. :rolleyes:

A copy of the actual letter will likely be produced this week, and the list will be out there.