It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does 2013 NDAA reflect real stance on gay marriage??

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I am convinced Obama's latest statement on gay marriage is just more of his pandering for votes, he has to get that section of voters this November and imo he will say anything he has to whether he believes it or not...he is a politician after all.

So today I was perusing the new NDAA bill (too much time on my hands), and this passage caught my eye...when I saw the title I really expected it to say the exact opposite....color me surprised!!! NO same sex marriage on military bases
what!!!
But the President said they could get married! What kind of game is he playing??


H.R.4310
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Reported in House - RH)

SEC. 537. USE OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS SITES FOR MARRIAGE CEREMONIES OR MARRIAGE-LIKE CEREMONIES.

A military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of, the Department of Defense may not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.


thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~c112OID1sU:e258839:



I am all for equality in the pain of marriage....and I thought he repealed don't ask don't tell......so he's playing games again.........

GBLT voters who think he is on their side need to wake up and start looking deep into legislation and see what is really going on, because it is all about the votes not about equality.....good luck out there voters.




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


DADT wasn't about marriage, it was about serving openly.

The two do not equate, so you can't really blame Obama for this. As same sex marriage is still "illegal" in most US states, it makes sense that the legislation surrounding military same sex couples would be same as far as marriage is concerned.

~Tenth



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Actually, it's a GOP-sponsored House Bill (Section 536 of H.R. 4310) for 2013 the White House is threatening to Veto. They have not 'passed' it. I would think, if you were reading it, as you say you were, you would be aware of that.

Oh, and your link is broken.

White House 'Strongly Objects' to Legislation Protecting Military Chaplains from Doing Same-Sex Weddings or Being Forced to Act Against Conscience



The Obama administration "strongly objects" to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex "marriage or marriage-like" ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to act against their consciences, as, for example, in being ordered to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.

In a policy statement released Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget outlined numerous objections to aspects of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4310).

The bill was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee last week and is set to be debated in the House, beginning Wednesday. (See related story) Overall, it recommends that President Obama veto H.R. 4310 if its cumulative effects "impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources."


www.catholiccitizens.org...

www.govtrack.us...




edit on 24-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If it's a state issue, why make a point of putting it in the NDAA at all?

Why does the administration keep using the NDAA to pass these political footballs around and especially so close to a big election.....there is more at play here and the LGBT voters are the pawns imo.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Because the Army isn't a state's issue, it's a federal issue and the Fed has the right to set policy for the military along with the pentagon.

As the pentagon was against repealling DADT in the first place, it makes sense that it would push back in bills like NDAA which are in part drafted with the pentagon's and other military sources input.

Just another day in politics. I agree it's not necessary, but political football is just that.

~Tenth



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink


Why does the administration keep using the NDAA to pass these political footballs around and especially so close to a big election.....there is more at play here and the LGBT voters are the pawns imo.


...Aaaaaaand again.The White House has not passed this. It's an UPCOMING defense budget for 2013. This is an amendment passed by the Republicans in the house which the White House has already said they oppose.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I would think this section is enough to protect the chaplains....but to not allow the ceremony at all if a chaplain wants to perform it is wrong....especially if it is legal in the state the base is located in.



Sec. 1034a. Protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members

`(a) Protection of Rights of Conscience- The Armed Forces shall accommodate the conscience and sincerely held moral principles and religious beliefs of the members of the Armed Forces concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and may not use such conscience, principles, or beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment. Nothing in this subsection precludes disciplinary action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

`(b) Protection of Chaplains- (1) For purposes of this title, a military chaplain is--

`(A) a certified religious leader or clergy of a faith community who, after satisfying the professional and educational requirements of the commissioning service, is commissioned as an officer in the Chaplains Corps of one of the branches of the Armed Forces; and

`(B) a representative of the faith group of the chaplain, who remains accountable to the endorsing faith group for the religious ministry involved to members of the Armed Forces, to--

`(i) provide for the religious and spiritual needs of members of the Armed Forces of that faith group; and

`(ii) facilitate the religious needs of members of the Armed Forces of other faith groups.

`(2) No member of the Armed Forces may--

`(A) direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain; or

`(B) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement prohibited by subparagraph (A).

`(c) Regulations- The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this section.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1034 the following new item:

1034a. Protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members

thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~c112Wq5NbY::.

I cannot get the links to the Thomas site to work...sorry
edit on 24-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Actually, it's a GOP-sponsored House Bill (Section 536 of H.R. 4310) for 2013 the White House is threatening to Veto. They have not 'passed' it. I would think, if you were reading it, as you say you were, you would be aware of that.



He threatened to veto the one that included indefinite detention for citizens. You saw how well that threat worked out.

Still, I believe this threat more than i did the last one. It would be really telling if he vetoed this one and not the one basically declaring martial law inside the US.

Obama's priorities are totally bass-ackwards.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I'm not defending Obama. I'm pointing out to the OP that this isnt something the WH has passed, as he says. It's an amendment to a House Bill they have specifically said they oppose. Therefore, saying they 'passed' it is inaccurate.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Overall, it recommends that President Obama veto H.R. 4310 if its cumulative effects “impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources.” The veto warning is not specifically linked to the two provisions dealing with marriage, but they are listed among parts of the bill which the administration finds objectionable.



The House Armed Services Committee passed H.R. 4310 on May 9 by a 56-5 bipartisan vote, the only nays coming from Democratic Reps. Chellie Pingree (Me.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Ryan (Ohio), Hank Johnson (Ga.) and Jackie Speier (Calif.).


cnsnews.com...

So the armed services committee agreed with it, and Obama has not made an official comment in his words only the CBO...so I will wait and see .....imo, it will pass just like the last terrible one, if not I will eat my words.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I never said it passed...it only passed the house so far....I am saying in my opinion it will pass because he didn't care about detention of Americans so his track record isn't so good.



I agree with not forcing chaplains to perform gay marriages, that's constitutional....but preventing ceremonies for gays on the bases imo is unconstitutional if it is legal in the state. That's my 2 cents.

By the way in the house 77 dems voted yay.


And I'm a she......

edit on 24-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join