Harming the Troops

By The New York Times | Editorial

13 May 12

epublican lawmakers love to say they are protective of religious freedom and supportive of the military. Last week, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee passed two measures that undermine both in an effort to deny equal rights to gay men and lesbians.

It was particularly disturbing to see this implacable campaign of intolerance at work during a week in which President Obama announced his support for the expansion of the right to marry to all Americans.

Just hours after Mr. Obama tried to lead the nation forward, the House Armed Services Committee was turning the clock back. On a 37-to-24 party-line vote, the committee approved an amendment to the annual military budget bill that would bar the use of a "military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense" for a same-sex marriage or "marriage-like ceremony."

This measure is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion - a right that conservatives champion when it suits their political agenda. If, for example, a Navy chaplain wanted to perform a same-sex wedding, he would be prohibited from doing so in his chapel - even if it is in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages.

Supporters of this measure call it a "conscience protection" and claim to be shielding chaplains from being compelled to perform weddings between two men or two women. There is no merit to the argument; military policy already says that cannot happen.

Military policy says private ceremonies on military bases cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation, but it permits the use of military property for same-sex weddings only in states where they are legally recognized. That should have erased any concern about states that ban same-sex marriage, but that was not the real motivation for this measure.

It was intended to undermine the law that lifted "don't ask, don't tell," and to interfere with the laws in states that allow same-sex marriage. So much for the supposed ideology of small government that does not meddle with the rights of states.

The other amendment, which passed by a 36-to-25 vote, says the military must 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."

It also says that no officer may "direct, order or require a chaplain to perform any duty" that contradicts his "conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs." Note that this does not say any "religious duty," but merely any duty at all.

The measure is an outrageous interference in the military chain of command. Among other things, it would create a loophole for military chaplains to evade their duty to minister to all soldiers seeking spiritual guidance while in service to their country. It would also invite harassment of gay soldiers by comrades who might feel empowered by Congress to verbalize their antipathy to them under the cover of supposed moral principles, knowing there would be no consequences.

It could even be used as cover by those refusing to serve with gay soldiers, or even service members in interracial relationships, which, after all, could be considered by some intolerant people as an "inappropriate expression of human sexuality." It certainly has been in the past.

The sponsor of this measure was Representative Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican who is competing in a three-way primary to run against the state's incumbent Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, in the fall.

Mr. Obama said his support for same-sex marriage was motivated in part by his recognition of the injustice of not recognizing the right of gay soldiers, airmen, Marines or sailors fighting for their country to marry the people they love. It is sad that Mr. Akin and his colleagues share no similar feeling.

The Senate needs to strip the two offensive amendments from the final bill.