By Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday May 11, 2011 5:19:42 EDT

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.”

The Navy said its lawyers wanted to do a more thorough review of the legal decision that allowed Navy chaplains to receive training to perform civil unions on military bases, but only in states where same-sex unions are legal.

Military training to apply the new law allowing gays to serve openly began earlier this year and is expected to be completed by midsummer.

House members wrote to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to object to the Navy’s initial ruling, saying the service was violating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act by appearing to recognize and support same-sex marriages.

FULL STORY:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/...ns-051111/



Just yesterday I posted an article about how they were going to preform the marriages and then to my surprise today --the decision was put on hold. And then I'm watching the US news this evening and it's getting press on the major networks.

What do you think?

This is crap! If it's legal in a state then they should just let it happen. People just need to grow up and let other people alone!

I agree with you kendra. I also I have another issuse thats kinda the same. It has to do with the partners of gay service memebers. So now that gays can server thier country and die for it but god forbid we give thier partners medical and acess to the commisary? Really these people are in the same boat as I am where as I am lucky to see my husband for 40days in a year sometimes and they get none of the benifits as I do? Am I the only one who thinks thats a load of crap?

I agree with both of you. If these people get married in one of the few places that will allow it they should be treated the same as same sex couples by the Military. Everything is legal, so what's the problem? It's just pure discrimination.

Rea- Gays have been allowed to serve in the military for over a decade now. When DADT is repealed, it will be legal for them to do so openly. I personally do not agree that a same sex marriage is actually a marriage. However, the whole problem with the Navy recognizing same sex marriages for the same privileges is based on the fact that the Federal Government does not recognize the marriages. When that legal boundary is dropped, then I am sure that the Navy will follow suit.

Well now that they can server openly I guess I should say. I know people feel differnt about gay marriage. I dont care what they do. Life is short and there are no guarentees, so go do what makes you happy as long as you arnt hurting anyone eles. But my point is I dont care if they make it illegal for them to marry or not. The millitary takes care of the rest of us dependants but they dont take care of them. And how can that service member focus on their job when they dont know for sure that thier loved one is taken care of? The least we should be able to do is make sure that, that loved one is there when the service member steps off the ship or a plane or a bus after a deployment. How can we do that if they dont even get and ID card? We cant relay on the Onbudsman to do it because people get their personal opinons and feeling invovled. This has nothing to do with any of that, this is about helping support our service mebers better.Or even better helping support two people that love eachother and are spending their lifes together with in our community.

No one complained for the last decade or so. That being said, contact your elected officials and have them change how the federal government views the issue. It's really just a matter of time before this gets changed. That is the real significance of the DADT repeal. It wasn't about gays serving in the military, but it was about the federal government recognizing same sex marriages. Especially since it is very difficult to have one without the other, just like you are pointing out.

No one complained for the last decade or so. That being said, contact your elected officials and have them change how the federal government views the issue. It's really just a matter of time before this gets changed. That is the real significance of the DADT repeal. It wasn't about gays serving in the military, but it was about the federal government recognizing same sex marriages. Especially since it is very difficult to have one without the other, just like you are pointing out.

What really sucks is the gov has already extended some benefits to the same-sex partners of civilian employees. Once again it's the people in uniform that are getting the fuzzy end of the lolly-pop.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...eral-emplo

Personally, I think the real issue is being completely missed by most everyone. Whether you're queer or straight has nothing to do with the government providing various benefits to married couples. Why should being married or not matter to the government at all? If the argument is that it's a matter of personal choice and none of the business of anyone else, then there is no justification to discriminate and penalize single people or people without children with higher taxes. Both taxes and benefits should be based solely on individual income and status. Why should any individual not actually facing the risks of being an active duty servicemember be given extra benefits just because they have a "personal relationship" to someone serving in the military? If the choice of getting married, who you marry, and whether or not you stay married is a "personal choice" then the parties involved in the marriage should accept full responsibility for their decisions and actions and not expect or demand special privileges or benefits from the government.

JimotonoGaijin --yeah but, it's not (all) about the taxes and extra money really --these people can't even come live with their military member if they get stationed over seas. They can't come to base and welcome them back after a tour. Simple sh&t you and I don't even worry about. Etc, etc.

The mentality of "Your spouse wasn't issued in your sea bag" needs to be put to a rest.

My Dad gets health-care for his family because he's married. My Dad got our housing and COLA paid for when he went to live overseas for the job because he was married. Etc. Why should a married Military member not get those things just because he works for the Government? You're opening up a whole other cans of worms here.

This seems like the mentality of a single sailor! I will tell you as a married military service member, that I have a lot less disposable income than I did when I was single. When I have to make the choice between Kumon lessons for my kids or that shiny new iPad that I want, guess what wins? Not the iPad! As for tax brackets and pay, the only thing I get that a single sailor doesn't is married BAH and COLA. Guess what? It costs more to live somewhere with a family than it does to be single! Otherwise we are all in the same tax bracket and I get paid the same as a single person with my time in and pay grade. Those "benefits" my family receives are designed to keep me from worrying about them while I am doing my job supporting my country.The government absolutely cares about marriages, because they are an employer. An employer has to deal with issues like this if they are going to keep people working for them or ensure that their employees can concentrate on their jobs. Especially in a job where you can't just quit. "Partners" are not married, not part of your immediate family, and thus the Navy is not required to recognize them as spouses. I had a friend who had been dating a woman with cystic fibrosis for five years. They didn't get married because she was a ward of the state and so the government took care of her medical bills. But when he had to take some time off of work to take care of her, his command said no because she wasn't his wife. While this particular case sucks, I agree with it in principle. Who is to say that some junior sailor can't just start saying that his "partner" is sick and he needs to take leave in the middle of a deployment? Sailors will do that kind of thing if you let them and that directly affects unit readiness. Bottom line is that while you can complain about spouses and partners and all that, there are rules, they are in place for a good reason. If you don't like them, research the issue and make informed arguments and requests to your elected officials. That is how change happens in our democratic government.