Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and 63 members of the Republican caucus in the House have drafted a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus protesting the branch’s recent preliminary decision to allow gay couples to wed on navy bases in states that allow same-sex marriages. The Navy announced the possible change in an April 13th memorandum about the procedures for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

“[I]t appears that the navy is preparing and training its chaplains to defy federal statute and ignore the provisions placed within the Defense of Marriage Act,” the Republicans wrote, noting that DOMA ensures that “the federal government would recognize only the union of one man and one woman as ‘marriage’”:

We find it difficult to understand how the military is somehow exempt from abiding by federal law. not only does this document imply recognition and support of same-sex marriage in opposition to DOMA, but it also implies that the Navy will now perform these marriages so long as they do not violate state statutes. [...]

Therefore Mr. Secretary we find it unconscionable that the United States Navy, a federal entity sworn to ‘preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States’ believes it is their place alone to train and direct servicemembers to violate federal law….[W]e agree with the vast majority of the American people that the preservation of marriage is critical to society’s stability and is in the best interest of the American families.

Akin has promised to offer an amendment prohibiting the practice, but the Pentagon insists that DOMA “does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation,” and explained that while the marriages could be performed in the five states that recognize them, the Defense Department would “not recognize those unions as valid marriages” under DOMA.

Indeed, while DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, it does prevent the government from providing benefits to same-sex couples. Therefore, if the law allows Navy facilities to be used for recreational purposes — like celebrating family or “personal use as deemed appropriate by the base commander” — but does not use the word marriage, DOMA would not prevents the federal government from letting couples celebrate their marriage on Navy property.

Add a fourth anti-gay amendment to the pile today. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), who has proven to be one of Congress’s biggest opponents of LGBT equality, has offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would essentially create a separate Defense of Marriage Act just for the Department of Defense. Here’s the full text of her amendment (PDF):

Congress finds that the unique conditions of military service create a heightened need to protect marital and family stability, which are promoted by the adoption of this section. In determining the meaning of or applying any ruling, policy, regulation, benefit, or benefit program of the Department of Defense applicable to members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Department of Defense, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

If Congress truly finds that marital and family stability depend upon denying more individuals access to marriage, then Congress did not look very hard. The American Psychological Association concluded years ago that marriage supports the mental health and well-being of not only same-sex couples but also their families.

Hartzler is trying to ensure that even when same-sex couples can finally be open about their relationships, they will still be treated as second-class families in the military. If military preparedness truly benefits when the Department of Defense treats some families as superior to others, Hartzler should consider advocating for reintroducing segregation as well.

Yesterday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) announced that he would “offer an amendment to require that all four military service chiefs certify that implementation of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)’ repeal won’t impact combat readiness and effectiveness” when the House Armed Services committee marks up the defense authorization bill later this week. “The amendment mirrors legislation previously introduced by Hunter—H.R. 337, the Restore Military Readiness Act,” his office said.

Republicans have long sought to include the Service Chiefs in the certification process of repeal as a way to slow down the elimination of the policy. Under the bill signed into law by President Obama in December, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” cannot be repealed until 60 days after the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for open service. Despite recent testimony that they had not run into any major problems in training the Armed Forces for repeal, the Chiefs have generally been less sanguine about eliminating the policy than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and the GOP has exploited their opposition to try and maintain the policy. Whatever their personal positions, however, all four Chiefs have said they trusted Gates to address their concerns before eliminating the policy and warned Republicans that expanding the certification process could actually undermine the chain of command:

THUNE: Do you believe that the implementing legislation, if in fact this moves forward, should allow for the chiefs, the servicemembers, any of you, to certify? [...]

ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF CASEY: Senator, as I said to Senator Lieberman, I am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered. So you could put it in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary. [...] It might take it up a notch. But believe me, I will make sure that my views are heard. The other thing. If you put that into the law, I think it undercuts the Goldwater-Nichols, that we’ve been trying to put the Chairman as the principal provider of military advice. So that’s something for the committee to consider.

THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that?

NAVY CHIEF OF STAFF ROUGHEAD. Sir, I’m very comfortable with the access and the input that we’ve had. In fact, as the report came along I could see the changes that we were recommending. So I have no concerns whatsoever about my advice not being heard.

Watch it around 4:30:

Hunter introduced this bill back in January and the measure now has 25 co-sponsors, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA). “I think it makes it a better process,” McKeon told C-SPAN last month. “I think the way this process was rammed through, it was done politically.”

McKeon employed a far softer tone several days earlier, when speaking to the Service Chiefs testifying before his committee. “[M]y concern was more the procedure of how it was all laid out,” he said, describing his opposition to the policy. “But that’s past and now we’re moving forward,” he told them. By accepting this amendment, however, McKeon is indicating that he is far too happy to re-litigate the fights of last year.

Yesterday, over 1,000 supporters of marriage equality rallied in Albany for the Empire State Pride Agenda’s annual Equality and Justice Day. Enthusiasm is high this year as Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has fervently advocated for the passage of marriage equality by this summer, and he’s joined by a groundbreaking coalition of LGBT organizations, business leaders, and religious leaders. Supporters of marriage equality were joined at the rally by Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy (D), and Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward (R), among others who spoke out.

In October, then-Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos (R) said that the GOP would welcome another vote if they took control of the chamber (as they did):

If we’re in the majority, my recommendation to the conference would be that we let it come up for a vote again. Things change every year. And who knows? But again, it’s a critically important issue…I think the whole attitude from Albany that whoever’s in the majority would have to pass something, or you don’t let it out, those days have changed.

Skelos maintains his opposition to the measure, but if he fulfills his promise to allow Senators to “vote their conscience,” there will be a chance to see how much things have changed.

The success of marriage equality rests primarily on the Senate (the General Assembly has passed marriage equality bills twice before, in 2007 and 2009). While some of the Senators who voted “No” before are no longer in office, equality advocates are still six votes short. Among the “No” and “Undecided” votes are actually four Democrats, including Ruben Diaz, who hopes to “paralyze all traffic in the Bronx” with his rally against marriage equality this weekend. If the 36 Senators not supporting the bill vote as such, they will betray the soaring majority of New Yorkers who support marriage equality.

If the enthusiasm from yesterday’s rally can be channeled to flip the six votes necessary, marriage equality will be a reality in New York quite soon.

(H/T: Michael K. Lavers for covering the rally.)

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) is offering an amendment to the defense authoritarian bill that would require the armed forces to issue specific “conscience” protections for servicemembers who view gay people as immoral and would require Congressional review of the regulations. From the amendment:

The sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of a member of the Armed Forces that homosexual or bisexual conduct is immoral and/or an inappropriate expression of human sexuality according to the tenets of the member’s faith community shall be accommodated….

[...]

The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations setting forth guidance to insure that the sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of members of the Armed Forces regarding homosexual or bisexual conduct are protected, accommodated…

Palazzo is using the amendment to further the conservative argument that extending equal rights to gay and lesbian people — allowing them to serve openly in the armed forces or enter into recognized relationships — actually victimizes Christians and undermines their beliefs.

In reality, the amendment is wholly unnecessary, since the Pentagon has already stipulated 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.” The existing rules already protect men and women of all races, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds who live and work together but have different values, views, or ways of life with which not everyone agrees.

The GOP has offered two other anti-gay amendments to extend the life of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and prevent the Navy from allowing gay couples to marry on navy bases in states that allow same-sex marriage.