Last year, Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos became the face of the opposition to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, going so far as to argue that if Congress lifted the ban against open service and allowed gays to serve without hiding their sexual orientation, the Marines could be so distracted that they would die in the line of duty. But since President Obama signed repeal legislation on December 22, Amos has moderated his rhetoric and has even taken part in a video asking Marines to respect and accommodate the policy change.

Today, AOL’s Andrea Stone reports that Amos is further distancing himself from his past criticisms, telling reporters that repeal has not created the kind of disruptions that he (and many Republicans) had predicted:

“I haven’t had any indication yet at all, not at all,” Gen. James Amos told reporters when asked if he expected the mass exodus of troops that Sen. John McCain and other critics predicted if the ban was lifted.

Amos was visiting troops in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province when President Barack Obama signed the repeal in late December. He said he addressed some 12,000 Marines about the change and “everyone said, ‘Sir, we got it. We’re going to do this thing.‘”

Amos also said that the Marines have already started preparing the force for implementing repeal. The “training of military lawyers, counselors and chaplains began Feb. 7,” he said, noting that “the service’s three-star generals and their spouses underwent a training session recently in New Orleans.” He “expects all leaders down to company commanders and platoon sergeants to have been briefed by the middle of next month.”

Amos’s comments about the rather smooth process following repeal undermines the warnings of McCain and other Republicans, who cherry picked statistics from the Pentagon’s study of the policy to argue that hundreds of thousands would leave the force if the policy is lifted. McCain, for instance, urged against a “rush to repeal” and said that 12 percent of the military would leave the service if the policy were changed.

Box Turtle Bulletin’s Timothy Kincaid notes that the Family Research Center (FRC)’s claims that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would undermine religious freedoms and lead to a mass exodus of Christian chaplains were overblown at best and lies at worst. From the Christian Post:

Army Chaplain Lt. Col. Carleton Birch said Wednesday that chaplains already have experience in counseling homosexual soldiers and will likely be able to adjust easily to an openly homosexual military.

“I’ve counseled homosexual soldiers when if I told anyone else that, they would get kicked out,” shared Birch, an evangelical.

When asked if chaplains would be limited in their ability to serve soldiers following the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal, he said that no changes were necessary to protect chaplains’ rights.

He maintained, “We’ve always been able to preach and teach” and anticipate little change in the future. [...]

Lt. Col. Lisa H. Tice, a Reformed chaplain who serves in the personnel, budget and readiness division of the Air Force Office of the Chief of Chaplains, said that Tier 1, the first phase of the military training, is geared towards chaplains.

Tice said of counseling gays, “We don’t see this as a big deal.”

The Pentagon has maintained that “[t]here will be no changes regarding Service member exercise of religious beliefs, nor are there any changes to policies concerning the Chaplain Corps of the Military Departments and their duties. The Chaplain Corps’ First Amendment freedoms and their duty to care for all will not change.”

During the DADT debate last year, FRC argued that repeal would silence military chaplains and undermine their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religion. “If chaplains are forced to council same sex couples or are limited in the moral teachings that they can present, you can look for Orthodox Christian chaplains to exit the military, leaving an insurmountable void in the fostering of an environment that ensures that the man and women who wear the uniform are in their best mental, emotional and spiritual condition necessary to defend the nation and the ideals that they represent,” the FRC President Tony Perkins explained back in April.

Yesterday, New Hampshire’s House Judiciary Committee held an eight-hour hearing to consider three proposals to rescind the state’s 2009 same-sex marriage law. More than 600 people attended the marathon session, which ran from 10:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M., and at which supporters of the law far outnumbered its detractors. The committee heard from dozens of happily married same-sex couples, their straight allies and a surprising number of young people, some of whom took the day off from school to attend the hearings.

Below is a video compilation of some of the most outrageous claims levied by opponents of the measure, along with a musical surprise from a supporter of marriage equality:

- REP. ALFRED BALDASARO: “The same thing happened in Canada, where they passed gay marriage. Now they’re fighting in the courts to get 3 husbands, 3 wives.”

- SEN. FENTON GROEN: “[Homosexuality] will significantly increase their risk of serious diseases and can be expected to significantly shorten their lives.”

- HOWARD KAUFMAN: “A future redefinition of marriage that permits polygamy would facilitate the introduction an aspect of Sharia or Islamic law that permits a man to have up to four wives.”

Watch it:

The committee is considering three separate bills: HB 437 would rescind same-sex marriage, HB 443 would define marriage as between one man and one woman, and HB 569, would establish domestic unions.

House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt asked the committee to hold the bills until next year so lawmakers can focus on fiscal issues and yesterday Rep. David Bates, who had pushed for a vote this year, agreed. “I have been assured the effort to restore traditional marriage will have the full support of House leadership when the time comes to take it up next year.” Democratic Gov. John Lynch is prepared to veto a repeal bill, but “Republicans hold supermajorities in both the House and Senate which would be enough to override a veto.”