Does anyone else see the blatant violation of the 10th amendment in the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage and the dangerous precedent it sets?

SGT Jeremiah B., Thanks Bro. I wanted to ask the CPT for a reason but the @ system wouldn't retrieve his profile. I thought maybe he didn't know the culture. No biggie. It just seems akin to saying something like, "that's dumb" without expounding. It increases tension and makes understanding less likely.

SSgt (Join to see) - How is homosexuality a choice? Are you homosexual, and know that you chose to be discriminated against, have people treat you unfairly, be bullied or beaten up. When a homosexual tells me they were born that way I tend to believe them, because I know that heterosexuality was not a choice for me, I know I was born that way.

Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - read it, the 14th. "No state shall..."

Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette I realize its not scientific, but what is pretty convincing for me is this:

I'm attracted to women. It's not a "choice" - it just is. No matter how hunky or great a man is, I've never been sexually attracted to them. It's never even a twinge in my head. I can't choose to be attracted to men. If *I* can't choose what sex I'm attracted to, how can I think it's a choice for anyone else?

How about you? Is it a choice for you? Do you feel a twinge of sexual excitement for both sexes?

My feeling on why this ruling went the right way is because it hinged on the fact that marriage is not strictly something that requires the possibility of pro-creation. While that is a reasonable outcome of many marriages, if marriage is allowed only for pairings that can reproduce, then we have to disallow it for sterile people, old people, etc etc etc. The fact that marriage is not just that was a big discussion during the oral arguments.

I think the reason that the 14th was a reasonable choice here was that this case was about enforcing equality across all the states - what is recognized in one, should be recognized in the others. If we agree that marriage is a civil right - and not a State's right - then the 14th makes sense to me.

1SG (Join to see) - Actually during the civil rights movement this was another marriage issue that was under question because people wanted to deny people the right to marry based upon race.

Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - With that logic on incentivizing procreation, wouldn't it also mean that the same set of tax breaks be given to polygamists, or anyone giving proof that they have procreated. Why is there no extra tax burden on those who have abortions, or get divorced? Doesn't sound like good deductive reasoning. I simply believe that people asked their representatives to give them a tax break from the burden of supporting more people than oneself, we know that a single income stretches farther for one person than it will for 3 people, it's that simple. No grand scheme to get people to have children.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - Then using this argument and the fact all states recognize each others driver's license, then shouldn't all states accept the others conceal and carry laws? Not to change the subject, but looking at the practical part.

SSG Jeff Binkiewicz - Most of the time I chalk up reasonless down votes to a lack of conviction, intestinal fortitude, or plain old maturity. It's more than a little disheartening to see it come from NCO's.

SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - The citation that the Texas AG referred to was already in place prior to this issue coming up. I'm not sure of the history behind it or the longevity, but basically it says that no administrator can be compelled to act against their faith. It doesn't specify which actions or which administrators, so I'm presuming it's a blanket provision. Interesting that it doesn't seem to cover the civilian population, isn't it?

May as well have one of these. They are delicious.

SrA Edward Vong - And protected under the 21st Amendment! (The beer, that is.)