Political Animal

Blog

May 10, 2012 5:26 PM Keeping Everything Uptight and Out-of-Sight at Military Bases

By Ed Kilgore

In additional action on the defense front by House Republicans, we have an Armed Services Committee vote on two very important amendments to the pending defense reauthorization bill, per The Hill’s Carlo Munoz:

On the same day that President Obama threw the weight of the White House in support of gay marriage, defense lawmakers in the House banned the practice from taking place on U.S. military bases.
Members of the House Armed Services committee voted to include the measure by Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) into the panel’s version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill late Wednesday night.
The measure, which prevents “marriage or marriage-like ceremonies” between same-sex couples from taking place at American military bases, was approved by a 37 to 24 vote along party lines.
Republican panel members also approved language to protect military personnel from reprisals for expressing “their moral principles and religious beliefs… concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality.”
That amendment, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was approved by a straight party-line vote of 36 to 25.

Don’t know about you, but I’m touched at the concerns of these solons that military bases just aren’t safe havens for bigotry any more. I mean, is nothing sacred?


Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • EdTheRed on May 10, 2012 5:46 PM:

    In other words, "Eff you, gay service academy graduates, NO CAMPUS WEDDING FOR YOU!"

    This is actually especially relevant since New York (USMA) has gay marriage, Maryland (USNA) has approved gay marriage, Connecticut (USCGA) has gay marriage, and Colorado (USAFA) has a civil unions bill that is on the verge of passing.

    Heckuva job, Congress. Sheesh.

  • Poster on May 10, 2012 6:07 PM:

    These assholes really have no idea about the damage they do. Or maybe they do know and just don't care.

  • Daniel Kim on May 10, 2012 6:20 PM:

    I suppose protecting people from reprisals for expressing 'moral principles' concerning the details of the sexual relations of others can be easily extended to include protection for those who express principled beliefs about the propriety of having persons of undue pigmentation serving in the military. Protection all around!

  • Doug on May 10, 2012 6:46 PM:

    Can you say, "Undermining the Chain of Command."? Do these twits have ANY idea what "showing respect for due authority" means? They're Republicans though, aren't they? So never mind.
    This will die in the House, while allowing these pitiful examples of gross ignorance and bigotry, currently occupying the national stage, to toss some rotting meat at "their" base.
    However, one would think that even their "base" would recognize a poison that can kill you - or your political party...

  • POed Lib on May 10, 2012 9:32 PM:

    I'm a unitarian. Unitarians, UCC, possibly Disciples of Christ, other liberal denominations are religiously interested in gay marriage. When you see a gay marriage, it is usually a U-U doing the ceremony. What about OUR religious rights to marry gays?

  • maggie on May 11, 2012 10:38 AM:

    “marriage or marriage-like ceremonies”
    What does that even mean?? I thought marriage was supposed to be so uniquely snowflakey special special special - then how can something else be "like" it?

  • 4jkb4ia on May 11, 2012 5:21 PM:

    sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

    This Senate primary really is "Look at me, I am the most crazy".

    (I am falling behind for having only the vaguest idea who the people running in the Republican gubernatorial primary are. I saw two bumper stickers for that race this week. )