Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Does DOMA nix same-sex military weddings?

Let’s suppose that a gay submariner based in New London falls in love with, oh, a local cop, and the two decide to get married. They go down to the city Marriage License Office on State Street and for $35 obtain a State of Connecticut marriage license. Meanwhile, they have asked one of the Protestant Navy chaplains to perform the ceremony.


“Sure, guys,” says the chaplain, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, which six years ago became the first mainline denomination to officially support same-sex marriage.

“And can we do it at Shepherd of the Sea (SOS) chapel, where all base family services take place?”

“Why not?”

Why not, indeed? And as the Navy worked through its policies and procedures for the post-Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell era, it concluded that base chapels could in fact be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies, although no chaplain would be obliged to perform them. So it issued a “guidance” to that effect. Once word got out, same-sex marriage opponents and their Republican minions went predictably nuts, and late last night, the Navy announced that it was revoking the guidance at least temporarily pending further review.


The opponents’ claim is that permitting same-sex marriage ceremonies under federal auspices violates DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act–“clearly violates,” is how  Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee, put it. Does it?

DOMA does two things. It protects states that do not permit same-sex marriage from having to recognize marriages contracted in jurisdictions that do. And:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers on to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband of a wife.


This language is commonly understood to be a federal definition of marriage (one man, one woman), but that’s not what it is. It’s a rule for deciding what federal legislative, regulatory and interpretive language means. The point being: When such language refers to “marriage” or “spouse,” for example by specifying federal benefits, it cannot be construed to apply to same-sex marital arrangements authorized by a state (like Connecticut). Thus, our submariner would not be entitled to married housing on the New London base simply on the strength of existing rules regulating access to housing.

But when the federal language itself refers to “same-sex marriage” such as can be contracted in a state that permits it, as the Navy guidance does, then it’s not a question of “determining the meaning” of the language–i.e. making “marriage” and “spouse” now apply to same-sex couples. The language refers precisely to “same-sex marriage.” It means what it says. Last year’s repeal of DADT may well involve conflicts with DOMA. But not in this case.

Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
Grumpy Old Person

posted May 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm

Mr. Silk,

The ‘right’ uses/will use the phrase: “same-sex marriage ceremonies under federal auspices as their ‘out’. Marriages on a military base are, in fact, under Federal auspices, and thus, probably DO contravene the DOMA. Sadly.

It will be interesting indeed if and when the DOMA gets decided on by the SCOTUS. (Congress won’t deal with it any time soon – that would entail ACTING on something.) Justice Clarence Thomas is in a marriage (or, should that be “marriage”) that would have been illegal in America less than 50 years ago.

On other threads, I have repeatedly asked this question: How can any law that EXEMPTS ITSELF from some of the provisions of the Constitution be considered “Constitutional” in the first place?

So far, no one has answered. ‘Nuff said.

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Religion and Public Life. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Latest News Story on Beliefnet Happy Reading!   ...

posted 3:10:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The Ayn Rand Republicans
I confess to feeling a little bit queasy about the American Values Network's new video hoisting Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and other GOP luminaries on the petard of Ayn Rand and her atheistic philosophy of objectivism. Take a ...

posted 7:13:30pm May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

Whither evangelicals?
I'm fully prepared to believe that Mitch Daniels' family proved to be the unleapable hurdle in his abortive run-up to the GOP presidential race. Imagine yourself as wife Cheri, having split for the coast to marry on old flame, your husband and ...

posted 9:19:56am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »

No more "social conservatives"
With the presidential election cycle getting up to speed, it's time for reporters and yakkers like me to stop writing about "social conservatives" as if they were an identifiable segment of the voting population. I say this as someone who has ...

posted 8:25:11am May. 20, 2011 | read full post »

So clerical celibacy was not the problem?
Those on the Catholic left are not very happy that the Jay Report declines in no uncertain terms to blame clerical celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis. As the report puts it: Factors that remained consistent over this time period, such as ...

posted 9:50:34am May. 19, 2011 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.