Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written. This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.
A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York. It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what? I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.
I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines. On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.
One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.
Yes, the military has their own archdiocese -- their Cardinal is the Cardinal of New York City.
In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services. (An Archbishop is more hands on.)
His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...
In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.
The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).
So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual." Everyone can move on.
Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.
It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.
[More below the break]
Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....
The response of Broglio? It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA. It's a federal law. How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?
And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency. Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.
Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI). Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.
Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?
As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.
I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples." I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.
However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.
A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York. It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what? I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.
I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines. On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.
One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.
Yes, the military has their own archdiocese -- their Cardinal is the Cardinal of New York City.
In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services. (An Archbishop is more hands on.)
His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...
"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else. All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all. Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle. The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity." [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]
In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.
The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).
So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual." Everyone can move on.
Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.
It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.
[More below the break]
Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....
The response of Broglio? It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA. It's a federal law. How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?
And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency. Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.
Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI). Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.
Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?
As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.
I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples." I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.
However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please, by all means, leave a message below. I welcome any and all comments. However, language that could not make it to network television will result in your comment being deleted. I don';t like saying it, but prior events have shown me that I need to. Thanks.