Michele Bachmann, Enemy of Religious Freedom

Rob Tisinai

November 4th, 2011

Dear Representative Bachmann,

Why do you oppose religious freedom? And why are you such an enemy of the soldiers who guard our liberty?

I’m referring to your signature on Rep. Todd Akin’s letter to Senate leaders, which calls for rolling back the new policy allowing military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings in states where it’s legal.  The policy’s pretty simple:

A military chaplain may participate in or officiate any private ceremony, whether on or off a military installation, provided that the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable state and local law. Further, a chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs. Finally, a military chaplain’s participation in a private ceremony does not constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by DoD.

(I emphasized a few key phrases for you.)

Some chaplains have worried the military would compromise their religious freedom by forcing them to conduct same-sex weddings. This policy prevents that. In fact, this policy maximizes religious freedom by leaving the decision entirely up to each chaplain’s conscience. Yet you oppose this freedom! You’re eager to let the government dictate religious policy. How and when did you become such a foe of religious liberty?

According to the letter you signed, this policy violates DOMA.  That’s nonsense, of course. DOMA has two main provisions:

  • States that ban same-sex marriage will not be forced to recognize such marriages from states that allow them.
  • The federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages as marriages.

Nothing in the policy violates either principle. Your letter tries to assert otherwise:

The use of federal property or federal employees to perform anything but opposite-sex ceremonies is a clear contravention of the law.

Do you expect us to believe that? DOMA certainly doesn’t say it. And what a violation of liberty it would be! Consider a federal employee, say a guard for the Border Patrol — or a scientist for the National Institutes of Health, or a geologist with the Department of the Interior — who is also an ordained minister. Are you truly claiming  DOMA prevents these good people from marrying same-sex couples in a private ceremony simply because they happen to be federal employees?

If not, then retract the claim. And if so — again, when did you become such a foe of religious liberty, such an advocate of government control over religion?

The real travesty, though, is your contemptuous treatment of our troops. We ask such sacrifice from them, and you are pointlessly trying to make their lives harder. Hampering their legal right to marry in states that allow it. Restricting their choice of who will preside over the most important ceremony of their lives.

And you’re not just harming gay and lesbian troops.  As your letter acknowledges: “the National Defense Authorization Act is well underway and needed funds for our troops should be expedited without delay.” Yet here you are, trying to delay those funds, because you’ve made restricting the religious freedom of chaplains a higher priority than protecting American soldiers.

Really, Ms. Bachmann, have you no shame?

Sincerely,
Robert Tisinai

Timothy Kincaid

November 4th, 2011

amen

GDad

November 4th, 2011

To answer your final question, “No.” And negligible integrity, also.

Ben In Oakland

November 4th, 2011

at long last, has she no shame?

Christopher Eberz

November 4th, 2011

Aw dang, turns out that the actual principe religious freedom really apply when it doesn’t serve an anti-LGBT motive. This is my shocked face.

A reader

November 4th, 2011

Maybe one of her issues is that the policy refers to the minister as “a military chaplain” rather than as “a person in his private life”, and likewise in regard to “federal” employees (and “gay” troops). Perhaps something along the lines of “a person who happens to be employed by the federal government but is acting in his private capacity rather than as a military or federal representative” might make her just a little happier for the few seconds it would take to read the extra words. Or maybe not.

Charles

November 4th, 2011

Who is Michelle Bachmann? Her presidential bid is over. Her 15 minutes of fame is over. The same with Santorum.

Ray Harwick

November 4th, 2011

I wish I felt comfortable enough to open up my Facebook page to all the places I haunt so people could see the reaction I get from my “friends” when I share these articles.

Profound…

Silence.

Not a single blip of compassion.

Not a iota of anger.

Not even a smidgeon of shock or disgust.

Help me out here. Are my friends and family too fearful of losing their jobs, or their friends to assert themselves?

I started Happy Hour an hour early today, probably so I could ask this question.

Shofixti

November 4th, 2011

It’s amazing how salient this contradiction is, and amazing still how effortlessly it can be ignored when certain social norms prevail.

Lindoro Almaviva

November 4th, 2011

I am so done with this woman. If I run into her the day of final judgement k will file a complaint because it was too soon

Steve

November 5th, 2011

A wedding is not a marriage. People can have any kind of ceremony they want. Whether the government recognized it legally is another matter entirely.

But it seems some commanders have already misinterpreted the policy and think that just because a state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, having a ceremony isn’t allowed either:
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/wedding-bell-blues/Content?oid=2385365

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1904: Census Bureau Releases Incarceration Statistics on Sodomy

Today In History, 1969: The New York Times Takes Another Crack At Stonewall

Today In History, 1969: Upper West Side's Renaissance Blighted by "Parading Homosexuals"

Today In History, 1986: Supreme Court Upholds Sodomy Laws in Bowers v. Hardwick

Today In History, 1987: Presidential Advisor Urges Reagan: No Homos On AIDS Commission

Today In History, 2013: Russia's President Vladimir Putin Enacts "Homosexual Propaganda" Ban

How Will Today's Republican Party Mark The One Month Anniversary of the Pulse Gay Night Club Massacre?

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.