brickhistory

I believe this little nugget is directly related (no pun intended) to the "equality of marriage" argument that this ruling opened. https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/28/Britain-pushes-ahead-with-three-parent-IVF If three can now be the 'parents,' why can't three or more marriages, or other currently not recognized arrangements, not be valid?

Still serving and thus bound by UCMJ and USAF standards? United States codes, federal regulations, state laws, state regulations, city laws and regulations. Guess your struggle continues, but you did win a big one with this ruling.

War's over, man, Wormer dropped the big one... In no way negates the soon to be filed "marriage equality" lawsuits by polygamists and lots of other cats and dogs...

https://www.startribune.com/nation/210623791.html Guy who flew with her said her Friday Club or TDY nametag was "Helen Bedd." I hope she can make the bad man (DoD overreaction) go away soon.

Ok, so you acknowledge that it's game on for a brave new world as long as everyone consents - DoD benefits for multiple wives, kids, TRICARE, etc., same for Social Security, tax filings, the whole bit. Kudos for consistency of the standard. You assume the current, primary wife, much less any auxilary ones would be allowed to wear any...(which seems to be the stereotype given to anyone who finds homosexuality as wrong. ((Not looking to justify my beliefs or views here. I have my beliefs, my standards, my view on what is right and wrong. I've changed some over the years, but for now, this issue is as wrong as two boys fcuking...))

I do realize it, thank you. I think I want to marry several wives (simulataneously). You cool with that?

Nice writing, but flawed logic. The argument has been about "marriage equality before the law." Denying agreed upon relationship contracts between/among any consenting adults is by definition discrimination. Rights/benefits/recognition for any such arrangement should be forthcoming according to the argument just made and won before the Supreme Court. Polygamists are already making this argument. Successfully with this ruling, I'd say. I can't wait to see what other arrangements come out of the woodwork. People think up the craziest sh1t...

Grandfather = "Greatest Generation. I'm good...

Some guy named Hagel disagrees with your assessment.

My specific question has been answered; a chaplain can walk if asked to do something against his or her faith. I did not know that. But my initial point was what happens when those who don't cotton to such and are ordered to do things against their personal religious or moral beliefs? So for the specific UCMJ article - the number I don't know - but "failure to obey" is my point. Amn Bill and George want to get married. Only chaplain is Father Maloney, a Catholic and he says "sorry, I can't." Amn Bill and George go to the wing commander and say they are being denied their right (now true due to the ruling). Could/can wing commander then order Chaplain Maloney to perform the service since it is his, Maloney's duty, to provide spiritual guidance and comfort to all airman/families who request such? Apparently, the answer is 'no.' My main point is for those that will have to actually deal with situations like this and way too many others that this and other recent changes in our military, never mind society, are going to have to handle. And handle flawlessly, lest the politically correct gods smite thee. But I learned something as well.

Baseops is educational as well as featuring breasts...

I have asked a very specific question: Can a chaplain whose faith prohibits him or her from conducting a marriage ceremony for a gay couple be forced to under threat of UCMJ?

Better if I say it appears that one belief system is being substituted for another? The exact argument made to get to this point?

Accept or be considered homophobic and subject to military sanctions. Your views/opinions/beliefs are secondary to theirs. Seems fair...

Can Father Maloney be compelled to perform his duty to marry given the federal law and UCMJ? If he refueses, is he disobeying a direct order? That's the bottom line - not slipping the problem under the rug by having Chaplain Fabulous do it since he has no compunction against it and we all know that most leadership simply wants a problem, any problem, to go away or be delayed until it is not on their watch - can a uniformed religious provider refuse such offerings (not sure of the correct word - services?) since his/her primary mission is to minister to those wanting such. Y'all have fun with that and trying to keep standards. The 'next step' arguments are many - why do I have to be married to get those benefits (I am aware of common law marriages)? And many more surpises await in Pandora's fabulous box (no sts).

I wonder if we, the military, will enjoy the financial savings caused by the dissolution of the Chaplain Corps? Chaplains are supposed to minister - to include marry - to all servicemembers wanting such. Now if Father (Capt) Joe Maloney can't marry Amn Bill and SrA George due to his religious convictions, is he then subject to UCMJ? How will leadership - uniformed and civilian - tackle this one?

https://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1150235 Who weeps for them?

This.

Nope, managed to find my liquor cabinet however. Can't wait until a wing commander's 'rainbow tail' is actually that...

https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/23/Gay-Man-Becomes-Acting-Secretary-Of-The-Air-Force Well,that's just fukcing fabulous. A guy who served knowing he was breaking the rules is now the boss. This is what we reward and what we have become. I am ashamed of my service.

Elections have consequences or stupid should hurt. Either way, good for them. https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/usa-guns-idUSL2N0EW1M820130620?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43

Toss up whether this should go in this or the History Friday thread, but as it's a movie, I chose here: Command Decision A 1948 movie based upon a Broadway play of the same name (remarkable to think about this being a Broadway hit vs. today's all gay, all the time shows). Some hokey special effects (ok, really crappy) dealing with damaged B-17s, but some great war footage of hundreds of bombers in contrails, crews getting briefed, loading up, etc. And the dialogue, particularly that about interservice bickering, fighting for resources, old guys lamenting about young uns not knowing what is important, and about concentrating on actually fighting a war vs. careerism, is terrific.

Not bad for a constitutional lawyer and commander in chief. You'd think somebody might have briefed him on UCMJ. He has a track record of such 'politically popular' comment despite what it might do to the actual legal proceeding - Cambridge cops v. the professor (and the 'beer summit'), Treyvon Martin ("could've been my son" when the 1/2 white/1/2 hispanic Zimmerman could've been as well. But no lawyer would ever argue that, would he?). https://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/305745-report-judge-rules-obama-comments-on-sex-assault-unlawful-command-influence Funny how he can't comment on other on-going investigations that involve him or his administration.

The Borg exist and flourish. The system is, therefore the system must work.

Like promotes like.