The Deseret News published an editorialfrom Hannah Smith bemoaning the pitiful state military chaplains will find themselves in following the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
What are the potential problems for military chaplains after DADT's repeal?
Suppose a soldier, sailor or Marine tells a chaplain that he is gay, and the chaplain, due to his religious belief, responds that homosexual behavior is a sin. Would that chaplain be subject to a sexual orientation discrimination charge, which could end his career? Must chaplains allow openly gay servicemen in lay leadership positions? Are chaplains free to preach against homosexual behavior or criticize the repeal of DADT? Will chaplains be banned from teaching classes on ethics and leadership on military bases and schools if they have moral objections to homosexual behavior? In military programs where couples receive counseling on how to strengthen their marriage, can chaplains decline to counsel same-sex couples if they are morally opposed to same-sex marriage?
Smith, like other conservatives who think their "moral" objections should override their professional ethics, misses the point. If you are a military chaplain or a mental health counselor or a therapist or nurse or doctor or pharmacist, you have sworn to uphold a set of professional ethics which are focused on serving those who come to in need. That professional duty takes precedent over your personal desire to pass judgment on those who come to you in need. To put it more simply, just because you want to tell the fags they're going to hell, doesn't mean it's consistent with the ethics of your profession nor is it appropriate behavior.
At some level, the fears these conservatives express - that they'll be driven out of their professions - are accurate. Standards of professional conduct are changing and those who don't adapt to the new standards may find themselves sidelined in their professions - excluded, for example, from serving as military chaplains for refusing to tend to the spiritual and pastoral needs of sexual minority members of the military.
Unspoken in Smith's editorial are a number of ideas that need to be made explicit.
If courts agree that DOMA is unconstitutional, then the flood gates would open for benefits, causing a wave of additional religious liberty and free speech issues to inundate military chaplains.
We've already had a glimpse of such change. This spring, the Navy Chaplaincy announced that same-sex marriages could be held on military bases and in military chapels in states where same-sex marriage is legal. (After receiving pressure from Congress, it later withdrew that policy pending further review.)
Smith rather coyly avoids explaining why this change might have been a problem. After all, if a base is in a state where same sex couples can marry, and a same sex couple (with at least one military member) wants to marry, there's no basis for refusing to allow that couple access to the military chapel on the base. The problem here isn't that chaplains can't be bigots and can't say they're bigots, it's they can't enforce a bigoted policy. IOW, speak out all you want, but where it is legal you cannot deny some members of the military fair access to military facilities and services.
And that really is what Smith and conservative pastors are asking for the right to do - to deny some members of the military equal access to services and facilities on the basis of sexual orientation. Claims of religious freedom or freedom speech are a smoke screen, intended to confuse the issue. Granting equal access to services and facilities to all members of the military creates a problem for these conservatives only because they don't want to grant that access. As military chaplains they don't serve a congregation such as they would in civilian life - one that organizes around shared faith, doctrine and creed; instead they serve a congregation created from all parts of the American population, one which is diverse in terms of faith, creed, race, ethnicity, and yes, sexual orientation. In his or her own congregation, one of these pastors could easily and legally refuse to grant membership to glbt persons - but the military is not their own congregation. As military chaplains, their professional duty is to all the members of the military, not just those who share their specific doctrinal and creedal affiliations. Incumbent upon them as a basic function of their role is the need to serve equally and intentionally each member of the military who comes to them.
On a final note, unconnected to the larger critique, I was struck by Smith's lack of awareness. She wrote:
Will chaplains be banned from teaching classes on ethics and leadership on military bases and schools if they have moral objections to homosexual behavior?
A rather astonishingly ignorant question. Exactly what part of leadership requires heterosexuality? I think it was Barry Goldwater who said soldiers don't need to be straight, they just need to be able to shoot straight. Smith's question also betrays a woeful lack of awareness on ethics. DADT has required systemic dishonesty on the part of glbt soldiers; is that dishonesty ethical? Does it reflect well on any institution that it requires systemic dishonesty on the part of some of its members? Or even all of its members? Smith also leaves unstated the assumption that being gay is somehow incompatible with being ethical, as if ethics is limited to questions of with whom one has sex or to whom one is attracted. Frankly, if a pastor is unable to teach a class about ethics without condemning glbt soldiers, he or she has no business teaching anyone about ethics. Same goes for leadership - if the only way a pastor can teach about leadership is by condemning glbt persons, she or he has no business teaching leadersihp.
Cross posted at OneUtah.