By Patrick Goodenough

The following excerpt is from a May 16 story.

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.

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 memo said the two provisions “adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.”

Section 536 of H.R. 4310 states in part that no member of the armed forces may “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.”

Further, no member of the armed forces may “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” that is prohibited by the previous clause.

The OMB complained that, “in its overbroad terms,” section 536 “is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.”

To read entire story Click here.



Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:16 AM By 4unborn
This is no less than the Obama administration trying to eliminate the Catholic religion in the military!

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:22 AM By St. Christopher
What a disgrace — the US Military performing sodomite ceremonies, and then having the President object to recognizing that priests and other chaplains might have moral objection to this repugnant ritual. Homosexuals will never rest as they try to obtainable the unobtainable — universal recognition and social acceptability of their perverse practices. They, and their minions like President Obama, object and demand everywhere: churches, schools, the military, everywhere, to be honored and admired. Most people, however, are disgusted by their sexual practices and life style.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:37 AM By JMJ
The OMB should be complaining that Obama and his fiends are definitely harmful, not only to good order and discipline, but, also to the welfare of the American citizens, born and unborn, and to the whole world. As Psalm says (NAB) in 108:8 “May his days be few; May another take his office” and also in Gal. 6:7 (NAB): “God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows”. +JMJ+

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 6:22 AM By BJ
Obama’s masks are dropping daily. He really frighten’s me………..

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 6:48 AM By MacDonald
Catholic chaplains in the military can ONLY witness CATHOLIC weddings, which have very strict Catholic criteria. For example, at least one partner must be a Catholic; also, THE couple must be free to marry in the Church; finally, procreation, and of course the fact that it involves one man and one woman. For these reasons, our Catholic military chaplains are MUCH more protected than more ‘generic’ chaplains in the armed forces whose denominations (e.g., United Church of Christ) do not have such strict rules. The poor Protestant chaplains sometimes have to do things that are totally AGAINST their traditions, such as having a high church Episcopalian celebrate a generic Protestant Sunday service that is like some hootenanny.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 8:07 AM By Angelo
Its my hope that Catholics are well educated on how to vote this time around. It was my hope that Santorum would run as an Independant, he would stand a good chance of being our next President. Most of whom I have asked are voting neither for Obama nor Romney, they are hoping for a different choice.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 8:34 AM By Bud 
Good order and discipline, BALONEY. I see a two edged sword to not recognize conscience especially of an ordained priest who’s only reason for being there is the spiritual needs of the Catholic faith. Again, the disgustingly repulsive influences that O’Bama freely accepts for campaign money from the lobbyists serves him well to eliminate all objection to his socialist plans. Maybe it’s time for conscientious objection until they can decide just who’s rights are at stake.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 8:37 AM By MD
The Obama administration has clearly waged an all-out war on religion in the US and it behooves me to see so many people blindly following and supporting this tyrant. He is arrogant enough to think he is a shoe in and the sad part is he will most likely get re-elected. Obama is clearly aiming at penalizing the Church for holding true to the teachings of the Lord in the 5 non-negotiable issues and this article is a prime example of this. Military Chaplains will be forced to perform these so-called “marriages” or be penalized and ultimately there will not be any more military chaplains to give our troops spiritual guidance, meaning all spiritual guidance (which will then become indoctrination) will be left up to the state. I believe this battle over “homosexual marriage” is merely a ploy of our president to promote and execute his Marxist ideologies which aims to obliterate the Church. My thoughts may be a little radical, but I think we need to wake up and protect the liberties we have taken for granted so long in this country. God Love You.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 10:13 AM By JonJ
I don’t agree with everything you say here, MD, but I do agree that Obama has seized all kinds of power in a generalized attack on our constitutional freedoms. First of all, Obama has continued unconstitutional detetions like Guantanamo, as well as expanding this power by passing legislation allowing the federal government to detain a US citizen on US soil for up to a year without any sort of hearing upon accusation of terrorism. Obama has also seized the power to execute a US citizen through covert action even on US soil (upon suspicion of participating in terrorism). We know he has expanded the warrentless wiretapping provisions of the Bush Administration, and is currently building a huge NSA facility in (i believe) Utah to store domestic warrentless wiretapping data. Congress just recently passed legislation that now allows the government to perform, and appropriate funds for, propoganda on the US population. Now, the populace must supply tax dollars so our government can misinform us. I do not see how this can in any way be constitutional, since in my view this impacts our voting rights. In reality, its not just Obama, but the last TWO administrations have seized all kinds of powers and trampled on constitutional freedoms.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 10:31 AM By JonJ
However, I can see why the provision that bans use of military facilities for gay marriages or gay unions is objectionable. Basically, its a backdoor limit on gay marraige. IF gay marriage is allowed under military law, then such a provision is prejudicial against a member of the armed forces in good standing. I presume that the rationale is that you are seizing public money to construct facilities that violate the conscience of a large portion of the public, thus violating their ‘freedom of religion’. However, presuming these facilites are already part of a legitimate appropriation for support of the military any incremental cost added by increased use due to gay marriage ceremonies is outweighed by its prejudicial effect against particular members of the military. One might as well ban use of all military facilities for any religious purpose whatsoever, based on the idea that you have inappropriately impinged on the right of atheists to withold support for any form of religious expression.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 10:38 AM By JonJ
I do support the conscience provisions; but, religious freedom does require that the “endorsing faith group” still may withdraw its endorsement of a military chaplain if they refuse to perform a gay marriage and the endorsing faith group requires its clerics to perform such marriages. Consequently, a military chaplain could then lose his or her position due to lack of religious credentials.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 10:39 AM By Denise Riggio
Obama doesn’t frighten me at all! I am more frightened by all the supposed Catholics that are even afraid to witness to each other on a Catholic site. No one is willing to be a martyr for fear of what others will think much less for what others will do. We are finished all you Mr. X’s out there. As my daughters boyfriend says. ” Most folks are comfy with Obama now.”

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 12:40 PM By Abeca Christian
Obama is in power! He doesn’t care what most of the people want, he has power and loves it.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 2:07 PM By Elizabeth
I say this with all due charity….. IF ANYONE VOTES FOR THIS MAN ……… THEY NEED THEIR HEAD EXAMINED !!!

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 2:51 PM By Gordon Campbell
Chaplains-pick up your cross in the imitation of Christ-REFUSE Caesar and accept your persecution with a glad heart.Your place in heaven will be assured.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 3:41 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
MD, 8:37 AM, Unfortunately for our Nation, your thoughts are not radical at all! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 3:48 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JonJ, You ploy of “Good Cop, Bad Cop” isn’t going to work here. I am referring to your comments of 10:13 AM (Good Cop) and your comments of 10:31 and 10:38 AM (BAD BAD Cop). Our Lord had a lot to say about hypocrites (Bad Cops). God have mercy on your soul, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 3:57 PM By JLS
The vote counting will be done by a company in Spain, which is owned by big banks, according to a report I read the other day.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 4:00 PM By JLS
During the VN war, reports were that a lot of “fragging” took place, against incompetent officers. I wonder how that would bear against sodomite leaders in a serious combat condition.

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 4:54 PM By Abeca Christian
God have mercy on all souls today who condone, vote or in anyway undermine God and all of His holy commandments! But I do pray for God’s justice as well to punish the wicked and also the ones who are of lukewarm because of all the evil that is being voted in!

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:17 PM By JonJ
Kenneth, my posts are not some kind of “ploy”. Instead, I am expressing a consistent position that supports religious freedom. One uncomfortable truth of religious freedom is that it requires us to tolerate religious practices of other faiths of which we might not approve. If, logically, we ban use of military facilities to members of faith groups that support gay marriage, because a significant portion of the public’s religious freedoms are violated by supplying tax dollars for incremental facility costs due to added use; then what about atheists? What of their right to make no religious expression whatsoever? Are you not then forcing them to support religion by taxing them to pay for military facilities used for religious purposes? What if protestants, Jews, Islamics, Buddists, atheists and Hindus decide they are offended by vicarious cannibalism as practiced by the Catholic Church? Would it then be sound to ban using military facilities for the transubstantiation? This logic basically opens the door to the “tyranny of the majority” being leveled against the religious practices of any currently unfavored group. How long will it be before this power is aimed at Catholics?

Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:26 PM By JonJ
Kenneth, as for my last post, is it not up to each individual religious group to determine if one of their clerics has or has not met the qualifications to be a clerical leader for their denomination? All I am saying is that the conscience provision cannot be interpreted in such a way as to limit the religious freedom of any faith group. Of course, if say the Episcopalians require their priests to perform gay marriages, then nothing prevents the episcopalian military chaplin who objects to performing gay marriages from seeking endorsement from another faith group and thus retaining his qualifications as a military chaplin. Or, would you have protestants push for a provision of military code that would say that you cannot penalize a military chaplin for deciding to marry, and thus prevent the Catholic Church from defrocking a catholic military chalin who decides to marry against the practices of his order?

Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:50 PM By MD
JonJ-Marriage is a religious institution and comes from the moral law. Historically, civil society saw marriage as a means of protecting the family, of protecting children and promoting life. Why do you think it was a crime in the US to divorce at one point in time, because divorce is a breakdown of the moral fabric that holds a society together. Marriage is not some ideology that evolves, but an institution created by God and no state has the right to re-define marriage. Kenneth is not advocating the prevention of religious acts in the military, but speaking of means to protect religious freedom for military personnel. This debate is problematic because it shows the potential for an end to having military chaplains if they don’t comply with providing so-called gay marriage. God Love You.

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:06 AM By JonJ
MD, my point is that if you choose to fight gay marriage, you should fight on this ground. If this fight is lost, don’t then try to win some backdoor “stigma” on gay marriage out of spite (the banning of military facilities from being used to perform gay military marriages). On one hand, this “victory” gains little because if the state allows gay marriage, military personnel seeking a gay wedding will just use civil resources to achieve this end. On the other hand, to win this phyrric victory, you are probably forced to use a legal rationale that then opens the door to banning any military facilities from being used for religious purposes. Of course, a Romney victory could make all these issue moot, since he is likely to go back to “Don’t ask, don’t tell” to feed his evangelical base.

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:01 AM By Sandra
Is it true that Bibles and religious items cannot be brought into Walter Reed Hospital anymore. Priests cannot bring in Communion to patients? Who’s guarding the hen house?

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:44 AM By k
Sandra, I think that policy has been changed.

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:15 PM By Dana
Last week I jokingly said I was ‘slogging’ through a bio of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I kept at it and it’s an incredible read, and the comparison to how Hitler resolved the ‘little’ problem of the German church must be a blue print for the current administration. I highly recommend the book (just stick with it, as it is well written and becomes very exciting) by Eric Metaxas. I’m deeply concerned that something terribly serious is taking place and we should all be doing something, but I don’t know what, other than to pray. Just the fact that our president was caught making a deal with an enemy of our country, holding his hand even when he thought the mike was turned off he said ‘when I get reelected we can get more serious’ or something to that effect. It was treason! We must all really pray in earnest for our country, for God’s perfect Will to be done and that Satan’s works be cast down. We’re not going to hear anything against him in the secular press…when did we stop counting on the freedom of the press? Doesn’t that ring some alarms? How far is this administration going to go? I’m sure he’s counting on being re-elected. Everyone seems to be asleep anymore. Just the fact that an American president is forcing homosexuality on its citizenry is absolutely outrageous…demanding our priests to marry two men, for pete’s sake. Our allies are all at risk and who is going to help us when we’re too weak from all these deliberately hateful ploys to weaken and divide us really take root? Anyone who could even remotely support such sneak and a liar can in no way consider themselves followers of Christ, or even good Americans. God help us!

Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:43 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JonJ, Once again you twist things. We are not opposed to the use of non-denominational chapels for whatever they want to do with them, including sodomite “marriages”. What we are opposed to is the illegal so called government of Sadam Hussein Muhamed Obama ordering Chaplains who don’t condone such marriages to perform them under threat of Court Martial, and we oppose the use of Catholic Military Chapels, as far as I know the only one is at West Point, for such amoral purposes. St. Edmund Campion and all the British Martys, pray for us that we may emulate your faith and courage. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:15 AM By Abeca Christian
Thank you Mr. Fisher for correcting JonJ, he seems to miss that moral point of our side.

Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012 3:33 PM By JLS
Be great to see a Catholic chaplain court martialed for defying the Obamic order to marry sodomites. Such an act by the govt would likely be known in later history as Obama’s Last Stand.

Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:06 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, While I can’t agree it would be great to see a Catholic Chaplain court martialed for defending his Faith, I can agree that it might just wake up some useful idiots. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, May 25, 2012 12:31 AM By JonJ
Kenneth, its nice that YOU don’t object to the use of non-denominational chapels for gay marriages or unions. BUT, read the full article and read the legislation: Section 537 of H.R. 4310 states that “[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.” That’s a blanket ban on gay marriage and gay unions in any military facility. Its not merely focused on protecting catholic or other denomination’s chapels. All I am saying is that I agree with the conscience provisions but disagree with this clause (for reasons different than obama). So, how exactly have I “twisted” anything and how exactly have I been “corrected”.