Yesterday I blogged here about an ABC report of a same-sex “wedding” at a military base in New Jersey. The story didn’t seem quite right to me, since there is no such thing as same-sex marriage in New Jersey–only civil unions–and we usually mean to say someone got married when we say a “wedding” took place (and that the couple are “newlyweds,” as ABC’s report had it). New Jersey marriage law governs any military base in the state, so the event’s taking place on federal property, with a Navy chaplain officiating, can’t make any difference. But the truth did wink at the reader from this story when it referred to the couple’s “civil union” in just one place. It bears pointing out that a civil union requires no ceremony, and no ceremony can solemnize one. It’s a registered relationship, a contract with signatures. Did the couple sign the contract that day, at the “wedding” that wasn’t a wedding? Or earlier? Or later? The two things–the relationship and the ceremony–have nothing to do with one another.
Did the ABC reporter who used “wedding” really know better? It seems she did, but it was a whole lot more story to suggest that an actual marriage had taken place.
And the impulse to make this event into more than it was appears to be pretty widespread. Just Google the (conveniently unusual) name of the Air Force noncom, Erwynn Umali, and you’ll see what I mean. Since the ceremony took place in late June, a lot of stories have rolled out hailing the news that two men had a “wedding” and were “married” at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a concerted effort to present this occurrence as something it was not, in law or in fact, and that the purpose of the effort is to keep forcing the public consciousness to confront the “normalcy” of gay marriage.
Another angle on the story, which has gotten less attention amid all the false triumphalism, is the role of the Navy chaplain who participated in this affair–and her superior. Chaplains in the military services are officers answerable to a military chain of command, but each one also requires an “endorsement” from a recognized religious organization whose giving or withholding of such endorsement is considered binding by the Pentagon. No endorsement, no chaplaincy, and no continued role in that branch of military service. Chaplain Kay Reeb is a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and I am reliably informed that the ELCA does not recognize a same-sex marriage as something its pastors can perform. But the ELCA has gone so far as to permit its pastors to “bless” same-sex unions. If Chaplain Reeb was acting within the bounds of Lutheran doctrine, and not freelancing, she could offer a blessing of the couple’s relationship, but could not have married them, even in a state that permits it (which, again, New Jersey does not). If Reeb herself is pleased to talk of having done a “wedding,” or more pointedly, of having “married” the couple, she might check in with her endorsing authority. She might just be needlessly making trouble for the more orthodox Lutheran pastors in the armed forces.
Reeb’s supervisor in the base chaplaincy is Air Force Chaplain (Col.) Timothy Wagoner, who is a Baptist minister. He had to approve the use of the base chapel, and from news reports in the Baptist press, it appears that he was present at the (not really a) “wedding” in late June, and was observed to be looking on approvingly, though he did not share in the ceremonial functions. This has caused some flap in the Southern Baptist Convention, whose North American Mission Board (NAMB) is the endorsing authority for all Southern Baptist chaplains in the military. The Southern Baptists, needless to say, offer no recognition of or blessing for same-sex relationships. The NAMB felt constrained to offer a gentle reminder to Chaplain Wagoner about the norms of the denomination.
And now the latest is that Wagoner is leaving the Southern Baptists! This would mean the end of his military career, if he did not obtain a fresh endorsement from another authority that endorses chaplains. I expect he will have little trouble acquiring one.
With “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, and the Defense of Marriage Act under assault, we can look forward to a great many more episodes like this. Many military chaplains will face requests–increasingly couched as demands in the new regime–that they bless same-sex unions, or even perform marriages in the few jurisdictions that permit them. The most orthodox among them–Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jewish, and Muslim–will find their positions very uncomfortable. They won’t view the doctrines of their faith as quite as flexible as those of Chaplain Reeb, or as negotiable as those of Chaplain Wagoner. What will become of them, their consciences, and their religious freedom? We’re about to find out.
July 21st, 2012 | 4:33 pm
Chaplain Kay Reeb is a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and I am reliably informed that the ELCA does not recognize a same-sex marriage as something its pastors can perform. But the ELCA has gone so far as to permit its pastors to “bless” same-sex unions.
Civil unions in New Jersey involve a ceremony, which may legally be performed by anyone who can perform a legal marriage. Although no one has said precisely what happened at the “wedding,” it seems clear that Chaplain Kay Reeb performed the civil union ceremony. If ELCA pastors can bless same-sex unions, I can’t imagine they would be forbidden to perform civil-union ceremonies.
It seems to me there would be a religious liberty issue for Chaplain Kay Reeb. If she (and her denomination) approve of blessing (and presumably performing) same-sex unions, would it not be a violation of her religious liberty for her supervisor to forbid her to do so? Suppose a Lutheran chaplain wishes to perform a marriage ceremony for two Catholics one of whom has previously been divorced and has not obtained an annulment. Would it be acceptable for a Catholic supervisor of a Lutheran chaplain to prevent a wedding, either civil or Lutheran, of divorced and remarried Catholics?
Religious liberty belongs to everyone, not just to those in the most restrictive denominations.
Also, it seems to me that military chaplains are there to serve the men and women in the military, not to enforce the rules of their individual denominations. If a Catholic chaplain were to refuse to perform a civil-union ceremony, I don’t think he ever would (or should) be forced to do so. (Of course, those who believe that the gay rights movement is simply a tool to destroy Christianity will disagree with my prediction.) But if a Catholic supervisor were to forbid a Lutheran chaplain from performing a civil union ceremony, that would be an unacceptable abridgment of the Lutheran chaplain’s religious liberty.
July 21st, 2012 | 5:32 pm
[...] more at First Things (blog). Filed Under: Wedding [...]
July 21st, 2012 | 5:34 pm
But don’t worry, Catholics, I’ve been previously informed that there is no chance anyone would force a priest to perform a “gay wedding”.
July 22nd, 2012 | 1:58 am
[...] Authored By Matthew J. Franck – See the Full Story at First Things [...]
July 22nd, 2012 | 2:20 am
You go on a long legalistic trip to only hint at the real issue: it’s all semantics. Two unrelated adults who hold themselves out to be in a committed relationship, living together etc, used to be recognized as a family even if it wasn’t blessed by some ordained officiant because that is what they are. That is until the government itself interposed itself into people’s intimate decisions and did away with common law marriages.
There are enough marriage certificates to go around. Equality before the law is an American ideal. Let’s live up to it.
July 22nd, 2012 | 4:04 am
A marriage is the relationship, whether recognized by government or church or not. A wedding is a ceremony marking the official beginning of a marriage.
July 22nd, 2012 | 3:18 pm
But don’t worry, Catholics, I’ve been previously informed that there is no chance anyone would force a priest to perform a “gay wedding”.
And there is no chance. Nothing in the story gives any hint that any chaplain will be forced to perform a wedding ceremony against his or her conscience. The only pressure brought to bear in this case was pressure by the Southern Baptist Convention for one of its members, the supervisor, allowing the Lutheran pastor to participate in a ceremony she and her church seem to permit.
Has a Catholic chaplain in the military ever been forced to marry two individuals in a Catholic ceremony that were not eligible for a Catholic wedding?
July 22nd, 2012 | 4:45 pm
Your last paragraph raises serious questions concerning the future ministry of chaplains from orthodox (those who hold traditional Biblical views concerning homosexuality) backgrounds. As you say, the religious liberty of chaplains and those they serve is being challenged as never before in the history of our country.
July 22nd, 2012 | 8:29 pm
Are chaplains not free to reject heterosexual marriages at all (such as remarriages that have not been annulled) or interfaith marriages? If they are, why should the legalization of gay marriage be any different?
Note that I did not use the scare quotes around the word marriage.
Marriage is an idea, and its meaning and importance varies widely, even today. Yes, it’s generally been a heterosexual institution, but most people are heterosexuals. What does that prove?
Civil marriage for many means home, safety, commitment. It is a partnership between two individuals, one that denotes exclusivity and uniqueness. That you can’t fathom why two persons of the same gender would relate in this fashion is frankly …. too bad. It’s none of your business, and although it’s nice to have the approval of others, we’re not living in sham marriages just for your approval.
So here’s the deal: your churches should be free to bless whatever marriages they wish, even if it’s the third marriage of a serial adulterer to his second mistress. We disagree with some of your values (and find your blatant hypocrisy surrounding marriage revolting), but we’re not fascists here, so most of us are fine with taking our business elsewhere when small companies providing non-essential services feel it necessary to reject our money out of a sense of moral superiority.
When it comes to civil marriage, though, sorry, but you don’t get a say. It’s our lives we’re talking about here, and we’re going to fight your efforts in the courts and demand you provide a compelling reason why there’s a public interest in preventing civil marriage licenses to gay couples. So far, the track record for your side in this regard has not been stellar.
July 22nd, 2012 | 9:16 pm
David N,
Your optimism is heartening, and I do mean that sincerely, but I find it difficult to be quite so optimistic myself. While you, strictly speaking, are correct when you say that this particular article itself does not explicitly suggest that Catholic chaplains will be forced to perform same-sex “marriages,” I do have to wonder why do you think that it never could happen?
Catholic chaplains up to now have been able to marry according to Church law because there is nothing in Church law that runs counter to (current) civil rights law. But can’t you see how short of a step it is from declaring same-sex “marriage” a civil right, to forcing churches to honor that right? Once same-sex “marriage” is enshrined in civil law as being equal to traditional marriage, the pressure on churches to perform them will be intense.
“As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality,” wrote Mike Weatherley, MP for Hove and Portslade. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-gvmt-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage-before-2015(19 Sept 2011)
And those who would apply such pressure do have a point, don’t they? We accept that churches and other private institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of race, for example, so why indeed shouldn’t churches have to perform same-sex “marriage,” if once we admit that it is in fact a right?
July 23rd, 2012 | 4:44 am
James Bradshaw
As the atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell, wrote, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” He was speaking on divorce law reform, but the point is of general application.
July 23rd, 2012 | 8:48 am
You go on a long legalistic trip to only hint at the real issue: it’s all semantics. Two unrelated adults who hold themselves out to be in a committed relationship, living together etc, used to be recognized as a family even if it wasn’t blessed by some ordained officiant because that is what they are. That is until the government itself interposed itself into people’s intimate decisions and did away with common law marriages.
There are enough marriage certificates to go around. Equality before the law is an American ideal. Let’s live up to it.
But gays aren’t family. That’s the problem.
I don’t have any problem with them being lovers. But being related to someone is more than just liking them a whole lot. Gays can’t ever be related to each other.
This is where gays are not equal. It is biology that discriminates. There is no way for two people of the same gender to join two family trees together, except through lying. They aren’t even the same as an adoptive couple, because adoptive couples gain their legitimacy through the “child’s best interest” standard – an adoption that does not put the child’s interests first is not an adoption, it is the sale of a human being (trafficking), and gay couples by definition put their own desires and needs over the child’s best interest (as opposed to gay individuals who parent responsibly, by seeking out a member of the opposite sex and forming a “coparenting” relationship).
Gays aren’t family. That makes their relationship different in kind from married couples.
You are welcome to think the difference is insignificance, but it’s a lie to say there is no difference. And you don’t have the right to demand that I think the difference to be insignificant, because in fact the difference is very significant.
July 23rd, 2012 | 8:57 am
Patrick –
During or after the 1960′s civil rights era, was any church forced to accept black members?
July 23rd, 2012 | 9:06 am
Patrick –
Are you sure about that? http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
July 23rd, 2012 | 9:17 am
Your optimism is heartening, and I do mean that sincerely, but I find it difficult to be quite so optimistic myself.
Patrick,
I suppose it is a sort of optimism on my part, but I prefer to think of it as believing and trusting in American democracy. And one of the ways I maintain that belief and trust is by not paying a great deal of attention to LifeSiteNews!
But can’t you see how short of a step it is from declaring same-sex “marriage” a civil right, to forcing churches to honor that right?
No one has a “civil right” to be married in the Catholic Church. As I keep pointing out, the Catholic Church will not marry people who have been divorced and have not obtained annulments. This would include a never-married Catholic man (or woman) who wanted to marry a divorced Christian woman of another denomination. There are laws in many places forbidding discrimination based on marital status. Why has it not happened that the Catholic Church has not been forced to allow a Catholic to marry a divorced Protestant? That could be considered discrimination against a divorced person.
The fact is, nobody has a “civil right” to be married in a particular religion. I have heard stories of Catholic priests refusing to marry particular Catholic couples for various reasons, and the couples don’t sue. They either go shopping for a priest who will marry them or they do without a Catholic wedding.
In this particular case, as I have pointed out, the danger to religious liberty was that a Baptist supervisor who opposed same-sex unions might have refused to let a Lutheran minister perform a ceremony to which she and her denomination had no religious objection. I think it would be unconscionable for a military chaplain supervisor to impose his religious beliefs on members of other denominations that he or she supervises. A Baptist chaplain should not be able to force a Lutheran chaplain to adhere to the Baptist religion.
We accept that churches and other private institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of race, for example, so why indeed shouldn’t churches have to perform same-sex “marriage,” if once we admit that it is in fact a right?
The ability of the law to enforce nondiscrimination laws on religious organizations is (to oversimplify) limited to areas where the government doesn’t get into religious issues. For example, in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the government. A teacher claimed she was fired by a Lutheran school because she had a disability, and she claimed discrimination. Based on the “ministerial exemption,” the court ruled unanimously that the teacher, because she had some minimal religious duties, wasn’t protected by antidiscrimination laws.
July 23rd, 2012 | 12:00 pm
[...] About That Same-Sex “Wedding” at a NJ Military Base – Matthew J. Franck, First Things [...]
July 23rd, 2012 | 4:25 pm
[...] This did not stop CNN and many other outlets from reporting on the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage. And so a manufactured firestorm began. (It’s reminiscent of the manufactured story about that same-sex “wedding” in New Jersey that I blogged about recently.) [...]
July 23rd, 2012 | 5:03 pm
Civil union is not marriage and yet the play acting of the progay bigots tell the lie that a blessing of a nonmarriage is a wedding and that the participants were thus married.
The marital relationship is comprehensive. As a type of relationship it necessarily entails a bodily union. There is no same-sex behavior (sexual or otherwise) that qualifies a same sex friendship for bodily union.
The fraud is in the play acting and the abuse of marital nomclamenture.
The abuse is in the misappropriation of the special status of marriage for a decidedly nonmarital arrangement in terms of the ceremony and the type of relationship and the false moral and social equivalence promoted by the participants and the two named chaplains.
The supremacy of gay identity politics is pushed onto the military and society for no good reason. Good citizens: push back and stand against this abuse perpetrated by progay bigots.
July 25th, 2012 | 5:47 pm
Patrick –
But can’t you see how short of a step it is from declaring same-sex “marriage” a civil right, to forcing churches to honor that right?
During or after the 1960′s civil rights era, was any church forced to accept black members?
Can we differentiate between black members who accept church doctrine vs black members who insist on “acting black”?
Because it’s important to note whether or not their rejection was because they are black, or because they insist on living a “black lifestyle”.
Are any churches out there doing gene tests screening for gayness? Because as far as I know, most churches accept gays who accept church doctrine, and only have a problem with gays who insist that the church must change its doctrine to fit with humanist teachings on gay sexuality.
Everyone has the right to practice their religion, but it’s not clear why anyone should have the right to preach Unitarian Universalist doctrine inside a Baptist church.
I am sure the Unitarians wouldn’t like a Baptist trying to proselytize or bully their congregation into rejecting UU/humanist values in favor of Baptist ones – ever heard of a thing called the “Golden Rule”?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact