Yeah, and this douchy amendment got put in.

Is the title of this thread supposed to be a parody of the title of Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"?  If so, it's not a very good one.

C-Freak, what's wrong with that amendment? All it does is prevent Chaplains from being forced to perform same sex marriages if it goes against their religious views. It does not say that those who have no problem with same sex marriages can't perform them if they so choose. 
It protects both parties interests.

Please ... please, put me on the list ...I'm a SOCIALIST!

And the ACLU doesn't waste its time on frivolous stuff. It is taking this very seriously. My opinion doesn't matter.

In the military a higher up can force an underling to do anything as long as it is a legal order. With that said, you have chaplain A. who is a devout catholic priest who is against same-sex marriage due to his faith and happens to only be a captain. Along comes Colonel B. who feels that same-sex parteners have the right to get married, and orders Chaplain A. to do so. 

Chaplain A. has two courses of action: 1. Stand firm in his religious beliefs, refuse the order, face court martial and see the end of his career at the very least. 2. Obey the order to save his career, but go against everything he believes in and face a crisis of faith.

The amendment protects Chaplain A. from such a fate as it makes it illegal to order him to go against his religious belief. 

It is not fear mongering. It is a legitimately needed law to protect a Chaplain's right to not be forced to violate his religious beliefs. Sorry C-Freak, but those are the facts from someone who has served and knows military command. Chaplains aren't civilians who can simply deny marrying anyone for any reason. They are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who could be ordered to violate their faith without protection like this. 

It isn't an agenda to force you to be unequal, it doesn't say you can't marry. It says chaplains can't be forced to marry you. As well they shouldn't if it violates everything they believe in.

Why doesn't civil union work for you Freak? Why do you have to force your alternate lifestyle on the general population? I really wish Bachmann would move to Duluth just so she could represent people like you.

People are complaining about different portions of this mess.  Section 527 applies to military Chaplains having the right to object via conscience to marriages, but that is not the part that people are complaining about.  The part that people are complaining about is the indefinite detention of US citizens.  The conscience stuff can be left in, people have the rights to their own beliefs, but the government should not have the right to indefinitely hold a US citizen without charging them for a crime.

Left and Right can sometimes agree about civil- liberty issues. Both Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voted AGAINST the  Defense Authorization Act containing the indefinite detention provision. Sadly , only 5 others joined them. In a vote on amending the act to remove the ID provision 38 senators voted to remove it and 60 voted to retain it. I think both Franken and Klobochar voted to remove indefinite detention , but after losing that vote they both voted for the final , ugly product. 
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention.

What does Jim not understand about equality? That's what this country was founded on, right? It's even in the constitution that Jim claims to love so dear:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that All men were created equal."

In Jim's case, some folks are just a little bit more equal than the rest of us ... particularly those that are white, male, monied and conservative, and fall in goosesteplockstep with his backward worldview.

Sorry Jim, the LGBT community seeks to be treated the EXACT same as the rest of society. They're not looking for, as you would call, "special treatment." 

Equality. That's all. To have thew exact same rights as you and me. Bogus ideology be damned.

That's what happens when you have riders introduced into legislative bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself.

WTF does an issue that involves LGBT issues have to do with national security?

I get the magnitude of the bill. I was commenting on the useless drivel in the amendment. 

And Jaidaz - I don't have a lifestyle. I have a life. A fucking tax-paying life that is marginalized by shit like said amendment.

Freak- I feel bad for you, and myself. I am truly at odds over this issue. I don't understand it, and I'm not sure if I ever will. 

My difficulty lies in a multitude of reasons that is too long for even me to describe. Part of me totally accepts you for what you are and feels that you deserve every right that any other person deserves on this planet. I would welcome you in my home, share meals and champion your love that you share for your partner or children or whatever. 

The other part of me tells me that the stereotypical homosexual lifestyle that is portrayed by the media, that I have learned about, observed and to a degree detest, is wrong. I also apply these same standards to heterosexuals that live what I consider to be deviant lifestyles of promiscuity and self destruction. These feelings are based upon my religious beliefs as well as an internal gut reaction that writes my own code of morals. 

So, how does that apply to a definition of marriage? I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a traditional view that the overwhelming majority of the global populace agree with. 

That being said, as a "modern" society that has accepted homosexuals as part of a diverse culture, I believe that you should enjoy the same rights as those who are legally married as a man and a woman. That does not, however, mean that you should be able to call it a marriage, no more than you should be able to call it a heterosexual relationship. This would re-define something that doesn't need to be redefined. Call it something else until all humans evolve into hermaphrodites or women take over the world. Then you can call it whatever the fuck you want.

@C-Freak, When the fuck did I say you have a "lifestyle" not a life? You said that shit, not me. Get over your self pity. Great strides have been made to promote equality. This doesn't cheapen it all, but creates a balance between your freedoms and rights to equality and their right to religious freedom. 

All your doing is making me dislike YOU, not those who are homosexual. I don't care about a persons orientation. It isn't my business.

No matter who you are, the basic protections in the Bill of Rights are a big deal, and they are in play here.  Thanks Dave, for bringing it forward. 


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/jon_stewart_blasts_congress_obama_over_terror_bill/

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/05/shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer-the-defens

(The last two links have a video component, worth your time.)

I already gave you an answer Patty, you just don't want to accept it. Yes, a higher ranking officer can issue an order to a lower ranking one. As long is it is not illegal, it must be obeyed or a court martial will happen. Morality and Faith, like with many other legal issues, don't always line up with legality. 

Will most officers force a chaplain to go against their faith? No. Are there officers who would? Absolutely.

Jadiaz:  chaplain a has a third option.  Officers can resign their commission at any time.

Jim: as one who claims to have served, you should understand that soldiers don't have "rights." They follow orders.

The lives of countless good soldiers have been ruined over the years just because of who they are.  If bigoted chaplains (note I said bigoted) won't marry gay service embers, they can GTFO of the service.

The text of the bill is not contained in the OP link.

Obama says he will not veto the bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/indefinite-detention-veto-threat-white-house_n_1149576.html

I doubt the creepy majority on the Supreme Court will stop this travesty either.

Sometimes we need to imagine the worst to keep it from happening. I can't help but wonder if the elite know better than we just how close to economic collapse we really are, and, seeing the strength of the Occupy Movement, foresee how they could clog the court system with civil disobedience. Can't have that. Easy fix?  Do away with the ability of the courts to protect citizens' constitutional rights. Or should I say FORMER constitutional rights. The proto-fascists of the Bush era have not gone away. The 1%  are not about to let something as messy as democracy get in the way of their ruling the world. Just as Latin America and parts of the Middle-East throw off their shackles, We the Sheeple of the United States of Amnesia are headed in the opposite direction. Is this the freedom we're always told our soldiers are fighting and dying for? Saddam Hussein couldn't have taken away our freedoms. The Congress + the White House + the Supreme Court can. Mission accomplished.

Eric Holder has announced that President Obama will issue a signing order n the indefinite detention clause of this bill.

Rightards who were previously furiously opposed to this bill: heads assplodes in 3...2...1...