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

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:28:45 -0400

I see this as a test bed violating and overruling states rights by way of a popular social issue that only affects a small percentage. It sets bad precedent for not just overreach of the federal government but also to other issues that will continue the decay of American society. I don't think it as severe as leading to civil war but it will pit marriage law against freedom of religion and open the door for wide scale fraud for benefits.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/why-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-civil-war/

Why the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage could lead to civil war - Allen B. West -...

This is the end of Federalism as we know it.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jun 26 at 2015 1:38 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:38:40 -0400

no doubt it is but the other two branches of government and the people must be willing to smack down an overly active court. They are creating "rights" out of thin air as they did with Roe V Wade a generation ago. If Gay marriage is to stand it should stand through the legislative and executive process not the judiciary.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Jun 26 at 2015 1:40 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:40:19 -0400

Are we also going to say that interracial marriage should be a "states rights" issue?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 1:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:48:53 -0400

The 10th Amendment really hasn't been relevant for some time. I'm surprised that Justice Scalia even cited it. Indeed, in United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

And, there really isn't any overreach here at all. What you have is a number of Republican political figures who repeatedly put the issue on ballots to manipulate voter turnout. And, they forced the issue onto the Supreme Court's docket. We've seen issues like this in the past -- express prohibitions against interracial marriage, states not recognizing ceremonies performed in other states, etc. And, it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain any form of a "state's rights" position when you start doing that. Marriages that appear and disappear depending on what state you happen to be flying over? That's nonsensical.

As far as Allen West's article (the "OMG, it will lead to another civil war!" crap), I think we're talking about an issue that is nowhere close to that. You're talking about "a popular social issue that only affects a small percentage" yet it's going to cause a violent revolt? Hardly!

The American Civil War was over slavery -- something that was at the heart of the country's economic system. Half of the South's wealth was invested in that despicable institution. And, you weren't going to wipe that away without a fight. There isn't the same dynamic at play here. It doesn't have the same effect. LGBT marriages aren't going to wipe out half of your home equities, bank accounts, investment portfolios, TSPs, and 401-Ks.

Historically, it's funny how often "deep-rooted" religious, moral, or ideological principles really come down to that.

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Jun 26 at 2015 1:50 PM

SFC Jeff L. — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:50:52 -0400

Gay marriage activists couldn't afford to leave it up to the voters. It was voted down everywhere it was put on the ballot. That's why they backed up, regrouped, and attacked it from the Equal Protection Under the Law angle via the courts and activist judges.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jun 26 at 2015 2:05 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0400

The 14th Amendment called and wants me to remind you it exists.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 26 at 2015 2:10 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:10:46 -0400

Since I am not a Constitutional Lawyer ( but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night). I really can't make a educated opinion. I did take constitutional law courses in pre-law in preparation for retirement. But that didn't prepare me for these knotty questions.

I would guess that some of the finest legal scholars in the country wouldn't render a judgement that was unconstitutional.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jun 26 at 2015 2:12 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:12:42 -0400

Whether I agree or disagree with a particular SCOTUS ruling is irrelevant. What DOES concern me is the fact that if SCOTUS (and by extention, POTUS) can dictate policy and local law to individual States, why do we even have individual States now? Why not just have the United State (no 's') of America? The Fed is making all the rules anyway.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 26 at 2015 2:14 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:14:44 -0400

Yes for the same reasons that those same states were dragged kicking and screaming to recognize interracial marriage.

Response by SN Earl Robinson made Jun 26 at 2015 2:17 PM

SN Earl Robinson — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:17:21 -0400

1SG I agree totally with the issue of gay civil unions but I would say citing Allen West is not the way to go. He has proven himself to be lacking intellect.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 2:23 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:23:55 -0400

If this is the reason to call out the 10th amendment then it seems that it's a more personal thing than the supreme court ruling it. Why not call the tenth for Marijuana, or ACA they aren't covered in the Constitution either.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 26 at 2015 2:31 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:31:10 -0400

I guess we have to suck it up!

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 2:42 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:42:03 -0400

I see that states rights have been reduced. But, why should the states be allowed to deny the marriage of two people? They have proven themselves unable to treat all fairly.

I do not have to agree with something for that something to be right for another.

The comparison to the denial of the rights of two people of different races to marry is not playing the race card. It is a legitimate example of how states abused the power over people.

It is interesting to me how some can argue for the feds when they agree with the decision and against the same feds when they disagree.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 26 at 2015 2:43 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:43:51 -0400

Is that the same Allen West who had to retire or be courtmartialed? Just wondering?

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Jun 26 at 2015 2:47 PM

MSgt Robert Pellam — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:47:26 -0400

First of all I don't see how this is a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment. Then again I am not a Lawyer or do I plan on studying law. But this is what I see.

Religions claim marriage is a union between man and woman. They also claim it is specifically religious. Problem is the Federal Government and State Governments recognize Marriage in a legal way, even extending benefits and other privileges under the law to marriages.

This is where it gets tricky. You see if you make something religious under the law then you run into the problem of separation of church and state. First Amendment, "Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In 1947 "Everson v. Board of Education" The Supreme Court determined that this applied to all states.

So if marriage is a legal, religious union, then something has to be done to remove the religion or the law from it. As I see it, the federal government removed religion from the law as religion didn't remove the law from the religious aspect themselves. Now everyone in the United States has a legal right to be married by law. And that makes everyone a bit more Equal in my book.

In my honest opinion, those that cry over this are just people who have a superiority complex. They have to be superior to others. This removes just one more barrier to their supposed superiority. Marriage is Equal in the eyes of the law.

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Jun 26 at 2015 2:59 PM

SPC Joshua H. — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:59:44 -0400

No, I see it as affirmation of the First Amendment, falling under freedom of religion. 90(ish)% of people yelling and screaming against it are the Christians because in their faith it is a sin...well sorry, this is NOT a christian nation, and others have a right to believe as they wish as long as it is not harming anyone.

Now I don't feel the LGBT community should be able to use someone because they won't marry them, or back their cake, or what ever because a private business should have the right to provide or deny service to anyone.,

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 3:02 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:02:23 -0400

One other comment. Just what harm does a marriage between two people of the same sex do to others?

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 3:04 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:04:33 -0400

I see that America really has failed to learn from the Civil War and find great irony that this has come during a week we have attempted to scrub our history of all things Confederate. Gay marriage aside we have a much bigger problem here with the SCOTUS blatantly violating the 10th amendment and creating laws.

The Judicial Branch does not have the power to create law, neither does the Executive Branch, and yet both have flagrantly done just that with little to no opposition. What should become of the Legislative branch that has now become redundant and useless - such bodies such as the Senate and Congress are supposed to create over sight, checks and balances, but now cannot. Ironically this is exactly why the civil war started in the very first place. Although part of me half wonders if the states stood up for themselves now if in 100+ years the history would be revised into a civil rights narrative and all references of our time removed from history as we are doing so now with the civil war's time. It creates a leash.

As people are celebrating marriage equality just stand by, informed, realizing that they are really celebrating the fundamental change of America into a Constitutional Monarchy, creating the same elements that lead to the civil war in the first place, and are now at a high point in the fall of America. Rome wasn't burned in a day...but at least you can marry your toaster now...so congratulations I guess are in order.

Personally, I think we're coming to another point in history where conflict is going to arise and I wonder how long the majority is going to take the agenda of the few. How long until enough is enough. Someone will reply to this and make it about gay marriage again and thereby missing the entire point of what I said but that's OK - I'm not too concerned with non-critical thinkers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 3:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:16:11 -0400

Many things apply to all states, and that is right and good. The right to vote is good in all 50 states, our drivers' licenses... and remember that the courts also decided in favor of gun ownership in Heller and McDonald.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 3:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:41:10 -0400

I am not sure which argument is on shakier ground.
Marriage should stay the way it was because it has always been that way.
Or
Marriage should be allowed for everyone because the Constitution says everyone should be treated the same.
Neither have a solid Constitutional argument, so my take is that it is rightfully an issue for the states or the people., per the 10th Amendment. The vast majority of states allowing same-sex marriage are doing so due to a court order, not due to legislation or referendum.

My thought:
Everyone was being treated the same already. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex you want to (assuming it is not a relative). Ergo, we are all treated the same.
Of course, it doesn't matter what I think; the SCOTUS has spoken. Until or unless a case comes up that overturns this ruling, it just became the law of the land.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jun 26 at 2015 4:20 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:20:35 -0400

There was no violation of the 10th Amendment --or any other Amendment, for that matter. As virtually every state Supreme Court wrestled this alligator, the issue was incrementally forced upward to SCOTUS. If anything this ruling, actually reinforces the 10th Amendment... and the 4th (Relationship of the States & the Federal Gov't) , 9th (Rights not Enumerated), and the 14th (Citizenship Rights & Equal Protection Under the Law). Todays ruling, whether you like it or not, did something it should have: Protect the Rights of the Minority.

Counter to the original insinuation of this thread, there is NO overreach by SCOTUS. The states couldn't settle it in their venue; it got elevated; and, it got resolved.

Now, it's Friday afternoon. So, I'm going to go exercise my rights granted by the 21st Amendment --go have a beer.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 26 at 2015 4:23 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:23:11 -0400

Sometimes 'parents' have to make the rules.

In the early 80s, a popular social issue was drunk driving/underage drinking and the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed and upheld years later by SCOTUS.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 26 at 2015 4:23 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:23:48 -0400

Am I the only one who see's the humor in all this? Justice Scalia compared the courts majority decision to the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie". From now on we need to follow all SCOTOS decisions (or at least those penned by Justice Kennedy) with the words "In Bed".

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 26 at 2015 4:33 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:33:39 -0400

This ruling upholds the 14th amendment.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 4:42 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:42:56 -0400

I'd expect more from an E8. For someone who swore to uphold and defend the constitution, do you think you might want to read it?

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 26 at 2015 7:29 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:36 -0400

Did you feel the same about Citizens United ? When the court basically granted corporations the same rights as you have as a person, ergo making corporations person's. Did you feel that way when the court said corporations have religion as in the Hobby Lobby ruling?

Did you feel the same way when they gutted theme voting rights act allowing for voter disenfranchisement?

How about it 1SG McKenna? Do you only disagree with the court when it doesn't meet your biases and agendas.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 26 at 2015 7:43 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:43:00 -0400

Top stick to your morning reports ad let the constitutional lawyers handle it...Civil War? Utter nonsense.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 9:52 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:52:07 -0400

I do not see a blatant violation of the tenth amendment. I see a long-overdue application of the equal protection clause.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jun 26 at 2015 11:23 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:23:33 -0400

Maybe some Governor will stand on the court house steps refusing to let a gay couple get their marriage license and federal marshals will have to force the issue.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 12:23 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:23:51 -0400

We are circling the bowl, I'm afraid.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 8:26 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:26:41 -0400

Our rights cannogt be Seperate, but Equal. I am a Conservative (most of the time) and knew this was going to happen. I do not see this as the Federal Govenment OVerstepping, but the SCOTUS finally stepping in where they needed to.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 27 at 2015 11:49 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:49:07 -0400

Yes .. Equal Protection is a blatant violation of both the spirit and writing of the Constitution of the United States. I think all states should be able to enforce hereditary slavery and disenfranchise women as it sees fit!

Response by SGT James Murphy made Jun 27 at 2015 12:26 PM

SGT James Murphy — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:26:33 -0400

We no longer have a legal Government. What to do about it is the question/problem. Here's another question I just posted. Should President Obama be subject to the code of Military Justice... See the attached Video... Please Share. Thank You and May America Bless God Again! https://youtu.be/NQadWypKCys

Viet Nam Again!

The Obama administration is trying to turn the MidEast conflict into another Viet Nam style embarassment!

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Jun 27 at 2015 3:41 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:41:46 -0400

I actually saw in Art 4, Amd 9 and 10 that SCOTUS would uphold.... reasoning is that the fed has jurisdiction to regulate interstate issues and commerce. So, commerce.... that has nothing to do with marriage except,.... benefits, insurance, pensions, retirement, investments, property.... although not specified, Since inter-racial marriage was deemed legal, it could not thus support the view that any exceptional harm was incurred, because no harm came before. This isn't a forcing of any one position, but a protection of rights that can move from state to state.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 5:34 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:34:18 -0400

This is sort of like when suffragist got the right to vote, or when they abolished segregation.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Jun 27 at 2015 9:02 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:02:52 -0400

Here's my opinion on it all, the usage of the 14th amendment itself the way I see it was a lazy scapegoat method to pass the law. I am assuming that they based their decision on Section 1 which based on the wording and by SC logic could realistically be used to justify whatever law the SC feels should be approved as law nationwide.

As for whether or not it is a violation of Amendment 10, the way I am reading it does make it appear that the two amendments sort of contradict each other. I don't know though, my interpretation is exactly that, mine. The Supreme Courts job is to interpret it and determine whether a law is constitutional, my job is to protect it.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 11:28 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 23:28:05 -0400

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To me, if a State denies them rights to marriage then the State is depriving them of liberty which is a violation of the Constitution.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 12:46 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 00:46:18 -0400

Yes, it's very dangerous to extend equal rights to everybody. I mean, if this trend continues, we might actually have to acknowledge that other people can be completely different from us and still deserve to be treated with basic human decency. The U.S. has been gay-friendly for just over 24 hours, and I can almost hear the Deliverance banjo playing in the streets; gay rape for all.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 28 at 2015 1:13 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 01:13:51 -0400

Yes that is the second time they rewrote Obama care. Hey the Supreme court found a right to Sodomy in the Constitution. Then a right to marriage is a no brainier. and Obama gave a speech that People of faith, not Muslims will have to adopt there new definition of marriage. Im waiting for these lgbt bullies to protest at a place of worship.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 28 at 2015 1:20 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 01:20:22 -0400

Ah yes, the intellectual giant Allen West. Respected and well-reasoned fella, not hyperbolic in the least. We survived Citizens United, we'll survive SCOTUS affirming marriage equality.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 28 at 2015 2:46 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:46:51 -0400

The ruling is a blatant violation of the Original Intent of the Constitution. Everything that was not delineated specifically in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal Government was and STILL IS reserved to the States.

Fellow Warriors, I do not believe that the Founding Fathers could foresee this. Legalized Sodomy, was not anything that they would have thought possible. Legally accepted "Marriage" between two people of the same gender was not anything that Jefferson could have even seen in his worst nightmare.

Where is our freedom now? I live in North Carolina. WE VOTED AS A STATE to not allow this. The plurality of the voters in North Carolina said NO. WE Said NO. At what point does the will OF THE PEOPLE come into play? Warriors, what did we, what are we defending? The SCOTUS can over ride the will of the people of an entire state.

GOD FORGIVE AMERICA

Response by SSG Patricia King made Jun 28 at 2015 9:05 AM

SSG Patricia King — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:05:52 -0400

Polling has demonstrated that almost every state's population has been over 50% in favor of equal marriage but few were given the opportunity to vote in recent years. Likewise most state supreme courts found in favor of equal marriage. Through the appeals process the Supreme Court was brought in BY the state's. By not allowing voters to have a chance to decide and by appealing their own court ruling states placed this in the hands of the Supreme Court. Also history has shown that in the interest of personal liberties sometimes the federal government must step in. IMHO there was no 10th amendment violation.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 9:50 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:50:21 -0400

Anything a state discriminates against a group and denies that group their constitutional rights the state will find itself on the losing end of a federal court case.

So, the question is did the states discriminate? I leave that answer to you, but the court simply said yes. Therefore the state exceeded ITS power.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 10:02 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:02:25 -0400

I am commenting here because it would not let me respond to another comment.

The question was can the SCOTUS override what the people of a state voted for. YES

For example, if today, a state voted to exclude females form voting, even by a large majority, would that somehow make it right? Or chose any other insane issue.

End rule, if a state or the people of a state decide to not allow ONE individual his/her rights without due process of law, the state is wrong.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 28 at 2015 10:35 AM

SGT Richard H. — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:35:39 -0400

My take on this, for whatever it's worth: Religions also claim that "the purpose of Marriage is pro-creation" and that "Marriage is a pact between Man, Woman, and God". Both of those arguments seem to be the ones that most people rest on when it comes to the religious aspect of marriage, and if taken at face value, would definitely preclude same-sex marriage.

The hole in that theory, however, is that if these were taken as absolutes, they would also preclude the marriage of atheists and infertile people. Do they also not qualify for equal protection?

Response by SSG James Arlington made Jun 28 at 2015 12:20 PM

SSG James Arlington — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:20:24 -0400

The real problem is that religious people can't leave their beliefs out of constitutional context, which they are required to due as prescribed by the separation clause of the first amendment. Jefferson so eloquently proclaimed that the first amendment established "a wall of separation between church and state." Also, as outlined in the declaration and the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, which are derived from Locke and Mills, the "people do not get to define the rights of others. Civil liberties are inalienable. Not granted by the state, or the people.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 28 at 2015 6:41 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:41:46 -0400

1SG Private RallyPoint Member, I was certainly interested that Justice Kennedy implied that the 10th Amendment was a basic premise of his argument to overturn DOMA. His line of reasoning in concurring with the Second Circuit decision in UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.
While citing the protections of the 5th Amendment he inferred that marriage was ultimately a state issue "New York’s actions were a proper exercise of its sovereign authority."
However Justice Kennedy's line of reasoning that since a state changed its own laws after UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, that this was sufficient for DOMA to be held unconstitutional across all 50 states [many of which has established state constitutional protections that marriage be limited to one man and one woman].
The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Supreme Court overturned many induced abortion laws in Roe v Wade in 1972 and has done similarly in its decision to rule DOMA unconstitutional. While it did not use penumbra rights in the ruling the majority certainly seems to have used that concept in their thought process.
The Supreme Court of the USA used circular reasoning to use one states laws to invalidate other states laws and state constitutional amendments. While this case did not open Pandora's box it certainly did not make any effort to close it or constrain it.
Don't be surprised when New Hampshire's age of consent to marry at 13 is used as justification to lower the age of consent to marriage in other states supported by the SCOTUS.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 28 at 2015 8:12 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:12:12 -0400

I'd say a pretty straightforward reading of the 14th amendment regarding selective enforcement of a (marriage) contract: makes clear "nor shall any state ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which makes it under the 10th, a power "prohibited by the constitution to the states." So, I don't see a conflict, let a lone a blatant one.

Response by SPC Kortney Kistler made Jun 28 at 2015 10:14 PM

SPC Kortney Kistler — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:14:13 -0400

By this same logic my permit to conceal and carry is valid in all states, districts, and territories of the United States. When one state enacts anything within its jurisdiction every other state has to abide by their decision. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 6:51 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:51:52 -0400

Nevermind the Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment, the states are still just that: states. They are therefore governments, and governments do not inherently have any rights, only individuals can/do, as only individuals have agency, and the nature of gov't is force/coercion. In my opinion, any legal measure which goes further to tie the hands of gov't is a move in the right direction. I think this court ruling does just that. If the gov't is going to recognize and provide benefits to legally married couples ("married" meaning the individuals listed on a marriage certificate/license), then it must not be permitted to pick and choose which couples it recognizes and provides benefits to.

Obviously my position also advocates legalization of polygamy as well, but if one doesn't want to have multiple spouses, then how are the decisions of other consenting adults to do so in any way one's business, let alone the gov't's? Ultimately, I don't think gov't should be in the business of marriage at all, because I do not see any compelling reason for it to be. Why do you need to obtain a license from the gov't in order to be legally married to someone? Why do legally married individuals get unfair tax advantages compared to single individuals? Why can only legally married couples file for joint adoption? It's not like being legally married makes two people any more de facto bound to each other than they would be otherwise, especially in light of the fact that people get divorced.

And all things besides, making something legal is not the same as forcing individuals to engage in it. Legalization of a matter only applies force to the gov't, in terms of restricting it from being involved in or discriminating in a matter, whatever that may be. That something is legal does not force non-governmental entities to be involved with that something. If a church doesn't want to religiously marry a gay couple, that couple can get married (religiously or irreligiously) somewhere else.

Response by CPO Ed Ball made Jun 29 at 2015 8:52 AM

CPO Ed Ball — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:52:59 -0400

At the day of the LORD, while we sit here loving one another, and live our lives as Jesus would have us do, without offering judgement, God will decide who's name is written in the Book of Life. Some will spend eternity in Heaven, others will be living an eternal Hell.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 29 at 2015 10:01 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:01:58 -0400

I question you basic premise that "it will pit marriage law against freedom of religion and open the door for wide scale fraud for benefits. "

1) Freedom of Religion. The aspects of marriage that the same-sex crowd desire have most likely nothing to do with religion. I am pretty sure they are focusing on the civil rights and privileges afforded married couples. As to ceremonies, there are many way to circumnavigate the church "marriage tax" (holding the ceremony hostage) by having a civil ceremony.

2) Fraud. Men and women have been marrying for centuries for fraudulent purposes. The primary one being the marital confidence privilege.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jun 29 at 2015 10:20 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:20:01 -0400

1SG, I respectfully disagree. I'm strong enough not to care what someone's sexual orientation is, and strong enough to respect someone's convictions. The use of the bible in anything like this is dangerous being it was used as a way to "convert" Indians from being "barbaric" to "civilized". It was used as a way to justify slavery and it was even used to keep segregation legal in some parts of the south. It would be better if folks stood up and honestly said they're either for something or against something and keep religion out of it. If the members of the supreme court don't think they are part of the political process or are truly "neutral", they are sadly mistaken. If they take a case which they have the option of saying no at any time, they should recognize that they are on the verge of changing policies, and changing LAWS. If they truly wanted this to stay at the state level, a simple NO is all it took being they all have a say in what cases get heard. The whole "religious beliefs" thing was a sham in my opinion and just another way to discriminate against SOMEONE for SOMETHING. Much like the ways blacks weren't allowed to sit here, or drink water from there, or the Italians are all mobsters. Some way to justify different treatment for a particular kind. Now it becomes a issue when it shouldn't have 1. because it's almost time to vote for a new President, 2. They are humans, and those humans do have rights, and 3. there are people like me who are just sick and tired of the constant reasoning to hold someone down. America is inclusive in her ideals, so shouldn't this be applied to the sexualities of her people?

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 10:36 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:36:35 -0400

Your church doesn't have to marry homosexuals, just like it doesn't have to marry Wiccan's, Atheist's, or anyone else who isn't part of the that church or it decides against doing it. Your local court house does have to marry people, regardless if they are gay or straight, regardless of race, or interracial, and regardless of religion. Hope that clarifies everything.

And if your church doesn't want a gay marriage, I'm sure there's a church down the street that will take the money.

Response by CPL S Gibbs made Jun 29 at 2015 11:56 AM

CPL S Gibbs — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:56:07 -0400

I definitely agree with the dangerous precedent it sets. As if we are not in disagreement enough over ideas. I'll have to look at the 10th amendment again. God bless us.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Jun 29 at 2015 1:41 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:41:36 -0400

I don't see it that way. Of course anytime I read anything from RELIEVED IN THE FIELD/ARTICLE 15 LTC Allen West (ret) I get a good laugh. He has a MS in Political Science not a Juris Doc. His "opinion" is about as smart as any other tax payer.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 29 at 2015 1:48 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:48:28 -0400

It's generally the closeted gays who get so homophobic. It's mE suck it up butternut.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 4:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:31:35 -0400

The federal goverment should play a bigger role. States rights have very little concern for minorities, (LGBT, Black, White, Farmers, Blue collar, low income, middle class) time and again states pass laws that empower big faceless coporations to de-regulate laws put in place to protect those minorites because they know that the media wont cover it as much as a national debate. So whos left to protect them.

Response by SSG Brian Kresge made Jun 29 at 2015 4:32 PM

SSG Brian Kresge — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:32:35 -0400

I'm not really sure how this will pit marriage law against free exercise; right now it feels like a horror story people are telling to scare each other.
"The hook was in the roof of the just married car ALL ALONG."

Seriously, though, most of our religious groups have doctrinal considerations at work in whether or not they perform weddings. Two of my rabbi friends will not marry gay couples. One of my rabbi friends will, but none of them will marry people who are not properly Jewishly divorced, and neither will they wed couples where one is not Jewish. Do not Catholics have similar issues with divorce/annulments?

Nothing about this ruling gives me much concern over my religious tradition coming into conflict with gay marriage.

I value Mr. West's service, but he's not exactly an objective student of contemporary issues. He's a firebrand, and his facts aren't always in order.

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Jun 29 at 2015 4:38 PM

SFC Joseph Bosley — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:38:11 -0400

Personally, I really don't care who you want to marry. Whomever you choose to sleep with is your own business and nobody else should get involved with that. As far as legalities go, whatever happened to the separation of church and state? the government has no legal business telling a religious entity who they can or cannot marry, just as the government should not be telling individuals who the can or cannot marry. its an individual choice and everyone should have the right to be miserable just as the rest of us married folks are.

Response by PO3 Michael Cardinale made Jun 29 at 2015 5:14 PM

PO3 Michael Cardinale — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:14:12 -0400

Wow, when we all enlisted we did our jobs knowing that we were securing our freedom for all people to have the same equal rights. I think it's pretty comical that some people think they have a right to impose their religious beliefs upon others. The 1st amendment gives us freedom of religion, meaning we can practice our religion freely not impose it on others. Further more the 14th amendment states we are all equal no matter our status.

Response by Cpl Charles Vadnais made Jun 29 at 2015 5:21 PM

Cpl Charles Vadnais — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:21:24 -0400

I've had to say this to far too many people lately. The United States is NOT a Christian Nation, the founding father's said so themselves. The first amendment itself even explicitly forbids the concept and says Congress cannot enact laws respecting any religion. A ban on gay marriage is exactly that, a law based on a religion. Which is in blatant violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court is not violating the Constitution with their ruling, they're enforcing it.

Its very disappointing to see so many people wave a flag of freedom and then expect everyone to live according their religious views.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 5:22 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:22:14 -0400

Two gay people getting married doesn't make you any less able to practice your religion. You have the right to practice your religion, up until the point that you begin infringing upon the rights of others. Gay people getting married does not make you unable to fellowship in your churches, or pray to your gods. It does not force your clergy to officiate the weddings. By the way, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to review Constitutionality of Law. If there weren't so many restrictive bans on these marriages in the first place, there would not have been anything for the court to review. I fail to see how this is over reach. Were you guys screaming about DOMA when it was enacted in 1996? Last I checked, that was a federal law that restricted marriage. So are you griping that a federal review is superseding a state ban, or are you griping that the Supreme Court has the right to set precedence with judicial review? I'm confused.

Response by 1SG Richard Brooks made Jun 29 at 2015 6:16 PM

1SG Richard Brooks — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:16:37 -0400

Sounds like marriage was a federal issue anyway considering that marriage certificates are recognized across state's borders and at the federal level with IRS filing purposes. Just a quick two cents dropped. Responses not necessary.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jun 29 at 2015 7:17 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:17:51 -0400

I just find it odd that 2 years ago, the majority said that since the Constitution was silent on marriage, the 10th Amendment meant that the Federal government had no authority to define it over the states and now says that the Feds can and should. I realize that there were two different arguments being used in those cases but the cognitive dissonance is somewhat offputting.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 10:50 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:50:05 -0400

A. Your religion doesn't get to dictate the rights of others, EVER. B. There's no credible reason to believe that there will be any increase in fraud for benefits (it doesn't matter how awesome you thought "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" was). If you're that concerned about fraud, you should be calling for the removal of marriage benefits for everyone.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 11:07 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:07:15 -0400

Slippery Slope Fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

IMO Logic/Debate should be a required course in high school, right up there with personal finance.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

Description and examples of Slippery Slope fallacy.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 11:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:48:19 -0400

This things is not over...far from it, more to come.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 12:22 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:22:50 -0400

This is just more typical liberal vs conservative here. The liberals want the Fed to over rule everything the states say and just rule with impunity from atop their ivory towers. Whereas your conservatives say that a state's rights need to win out. My personal opinion is that the terminology the govt's use is incorrect. The govt should be tracking civil unions, not marriages. Whether or not you get married, you can get a civil union through the govt....everyone who wants the govt bene's of being married should have to get a civil union still. That civil union should not be able to be denied to any couple wishing to enter a govt recognized relationship. If anyone can do it then everyone can do it. A marriage on the other hand, you could get if you so choose bit would not be needed for legitimate recognition. A marriage is a religious thing. It is between the people being joined and their respective god and their families. The govt need not gove 2 shits about marriages. Because no one has a "right" to be married since it is a religious activity. Biggest problem is that our society is way too damn soft. Just because you don't lile or agree with something doesn't mean that anyone else should give two shits. If what I do does not directly effect you, then F you. Pay my bills, then I might give a damn what you think.
*out

Response by LTC Dallas Powell made Jun 30 at 2015 2:43 AM

LTC Dallas Powell — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:43:10 -0400

I'm just going to go with the opposite of whatever Allen West said.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jun 30 at 2015 8:20 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:20:22 -0400

It amazes me sometimes how people will beat the States Rights drum but forget that it is the national governing body that sets the standard and then the states make adjustments from there. At least that is my basic understanding of the government. This goes beyond Same Sex Marriage. We have time and time again seen people fight on both sides over the same topic using the latest hot button topic as an example. Let's rewind the clocks a little and look back when Colorado legalized pot. People went nuts! Some yelling that the state can't do that because the national government says it's illegal while others jumped up for joy, or at least ran out for more munchies.

Sure we don't want Uncle Sam living in our homes every day but we appreciate him stopping by and giving us gifts right? I think we have biggest issues impacting American beyond the rights of two people regardless or gender, race, income, shoe size, hair style, education level or whatever other measuring stick you want to use, to get married.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 30 at 2015 8:35 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:35:24 -0400

I blame the legislative branch. Their inability to discuss, compromise, and come up with a reasonable solution on an issue is what leads to "legislating from the bench".

What would be a "reasonable solution" you might ask? Get the government out of the institution of marriage completely. Historically marriage has been a ceremony that was recorded in the church Bible, over time that morphed into a legal procedure. The same is true of Baptism... a religious ceremony morphed into a legal proceeding.

I propose a "legal designee" law. Leave sex where it belongs in the privacy of the bedroom (at least that's where I want mine to stay). If two old maids want to "legally designate" each other in lieu of their drug addict children, lets allow them to do so without asking "are you two f&%$ing each other?" if the 80 year old millionaire wants to "marry" his 25 year old nurse, but still wants his company to be inherited by his Son who has been running it for 40 years, lets not let "marriage" confuse the ceremony... and again, lets respect their privacy and not ask "Are you two f&%$ing each other?". Oh and yes, two people who are f&%$ing each other can appoint each other "legal designee's" without regard to if it's a male and a female, two males, two females, or trans-gendered and a eunuch.

Marriage is (for the most part) a religious ceremony, time for rubber to meet the road on "separation of church and state".

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 11:07 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:07:43 -0400

As a graduate in both Criminal Justice and Political Science studies, the first thing I told my wife was "there goes the 10th Amendment right out the G**D*** window." What has aggravated me to no end over the years has been how courts of all jurisdictions have been MAKING LAWS for generations. First, it was some microscopic change or had microscopic impact. But the two recent SCOTUS cases involving homosexual marriage rights and the court's REWRITE of key provisions of O'BonzoCare are the most flagrant examples of judicial legislation from the bench AND violations of States' Rights that I have ever been. You think the South was pissed about States' Rights before the Civil War? I see a constitutional crisis looming on the horizon that will make the Civil War look like a cat fight between two nine-year-old Girl Scouts!!!

The unforeseen judicial and legislative dominoes that can and will fall from the decisions of this court are, frankly, a little frightening to imagine. Osamabama has made no secret of his desires to socialize this country since his college days. With ample aid from leftist courts which both ignore the Constitution or rewrite it, and radical progressive liberals who have invaded significant arenas of our socio-economic world, this country is up Shit Creek and nary a paddle in sight!!!

Response by PO2 Shannon Walcott-Cluphf made Jun 30 at 2015 11:55 AM

PO2 Shannon Walcott-Cluphf — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:55:52 -0400

That sign says it's "an act of terrorism." Can I ask why people care if homosexuals get married? Because it's against the bible? So what??? How does this effect your soul? Is there somewhere in the bible that states we should be painting hate signs and protesting other people's decisions?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 30 at 2015 1:18 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:18:08 -0400

1SG Andrew McKenna, it is interesting that you are willing to use Freedom of Religion to deny a few of their rights. I have seen more Jesus teaching behavior from non-Christians, including Atheist then from those that claim to be Christian. So what is religion to you?

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Jun 30 at 2015 3:01 PM

PO2 Kevin LaCroix — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:01:53 -0400

I see no violation of any amendment. I see it as affirming the role of the federal government as protecting the legal rights of all citizens.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 5:16 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:16:25 -0400

Don't you think states not allowing same sex marriage is in direct conflict with what the first amendment actually says. "Congress shall not enact a law based on the establishment of religion."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 5:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:42:34 -0400

I absolutely do, 1SG. Nowhere in the constitution does it declare that anybody, straight or otherwise, has protection to marry. The people of each state where homosexual unions were put to the test overwhelmingly rejected said union. The violation is blatantly clear.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 8:58 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:58:17 -0400

I second Brian zeski's post

Response by SSG Robert Blair made Jun 30 at 2015 10:42 PM

SSG Robert Blair — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:42:25 -0400

Without a doubt the Supreme Court is violating the 10th amendment. On the other hand by denying such rights is a violation of the 14th by the state.

Response by SrA Christine Martinez made Jul 1 at 2015 7:38 AM

SrA Christine Martinez — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:38:28 -0400

Before I could read the 1Sgt's comments, I read and commented on the comment(s) made by James Greer: "Apparently people missed where we are entitled to equal protection under the law. Regardless of someone's moral or religious views, you can not legally discriminate and offer legal benefits to one group and not another. Insurance coverage, survivor benefits, tax law, the list goes on and on.
For those attempting to defend their legal position from a religious view, we have separation of church and state for a reason... and not to bust your bubble but marriage predates Christianity by a long shot."
To which I say: "Well, Mr. Greer, I would have to say that you and I disagree on the issue of 'marriage equality'.
First of all, without (me) reading the 1Sgt's question and comments, let me just say that the SCOTUS' decision in overriding the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights (removing the State's authority over the jurisdiction of 'marriage') is a dangerous precedent that should be considered *harmful error* in terms of government.
First, the harm is, that the SCOTUS took away the State's rights to deny 'marriage' to homosexuals, whether gay or lesbian, and that right certainly falls to the State, as the State is the entity to which individuals appeal to when marriages fail and they initiate *dissolution of marriage* proceedings.. aka.. 'divorce'.
Secondly, the error is that it is the State that's the entity to which individuals appeal when there is/are a child/children and/or property involved in said dissolution. It is improper for the Federal government to tell the State it* cannot decide for itself whom it will/will not allow to "marry". The SCOTUS would not consider hearing or ruling on behalf of individuals in dissolution of marriages, as the number of filings would be so immense, the SCOTUS would get nothing done... very little more than they do now. In other words, we can compare the Federal government to the role of a parental figure, being superior to the State, which we'll compare to the role of a child. When the child cannot control its own behavior or make appropriate decisions, it falls to the parent to intervene. But the child, in this case, the States, have been able to make proper decisions, and no interference is necessary.
The SCOTUS was WRONG and OVERREACHING in its landmark decision regarding marriage equality, and as a Christian myself, I would argue that your statement that "marriage predates Christianity by a long-shot" is incorrect... as Christians believe that the Bible, being the Word of God, describes the Creation of Man and all Things, by God in Seven Days, and in GENESIS it tells us that God created Man (Adam) on the Sixth Day...
GENESIS 1:26-31:
"26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."
The Bible also says, in GENESIS 2:24...
"24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Therefore, your argument that marriage predates Christianity is false... marriage cannot predate that which God created.. and marriage is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, as God created them, and ordained it (marriage).
Edited/CM

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jul 1 at 2015 8:59 AM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:59:44 -0400

SCOTUS has been stepping on the Constitution since John Marshall, so it shouldn't be any surprise. As for those who would call me a hater on this, here's a novel idea: get government out of personal relationships altogether. You shouldn't need state permission to get married,, nor should you get any special treatment because you do. Consenting adults should be able to do ANYTHING which does not violate others' rights. Government has NO place in marriage.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 10:25 AM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:25:42 -0400

Well considering African Americans at one point could not marry under our laws, and now it is acceptable. We are just repeating the past. There are some who were anti-blacks back then, now there are some who are anti-homosexual... It shouldn't matter how small the group (700,000+) United States citizens, it's about equal representation under law and in society to not be treated like second class.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 10:41 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:41:23 -0400

It won't lead to more fraud than there is now. However, it has not put the issue to rest.

Chief Justice Roberts said it best, I think. He said that proponents of same sex marriage were winning the PR war - the democratic process. But that ended with this ruling. So instead of continuing to build support and acceptance, now the battle lines are drawn in ideological stone. So instead of having same sex marriage in all the states and accepted by the vast majority ofthe population within 5 years, we will see a stubborn 45% opposed to it for the next decades.

Though it does meddle a lot with states' rights in negative ways as well.

Ultimately, it's something that should have happened eventually - and was going to happen eventually (same sex marriage, I mean) - but we were robbed of doing so democratically (like Ireland did) by the Court. And that was and is a negative and sad thing. It will prevent us having any unity on the issue and is inevitably setting up a collision course between religious rights and civil law privilege, which was also noted by the Court.

What's worse in a way is that the 14th Amendment doesn't really support it, because as the dissent noted, there is no Constitutional right for the governmental recognition of marriage. Indeed, a few short years ago, this same Court said that the states, not the federal government, were the ones that define marriage (the Constitution does not give that right to the federal government, so under the 10th Amendment, it resides with the states.)

One could argue the full faith and credit clause should mean if you get legally same sex married in one state it should be recognized in another as at least having the same rights (basically a civil union), but arguing that the 14th works this way is like arguing that Illinois or New York must accept a concealed carry license from Texas - there is no federally recognized right to such a license, either.

It is dangerous for the Court to invent from nothing something - and even the ruling acknowledged this.

Given, they also ruled that the wording of the law doesn't actually matter in the ACA thing, so that's MUCH more troubling to be.

Taken together, the two rulings basically say the wording of laws has no meaning and the laws mean whatever we say they mean, even if there is no Constitutional basis for that.

It is a most dangerous precedent to tell a society, a nation of laws, that the laws don't have inherent meaning, but will take whatever meaning they are said to have by people who did not originally even pass them.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 1:49 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:49:33 -0400

As I ununderstand where he is coming from I believe we should go a step further. The consept of the goverment having any say is who a persom marries is ubsurd. Licensing marriage gives the government controll over a civil matter between 2 people. I think marriage should happen without the governments input. After the marriage is concluded you go to your local govenrment institution and you file a merriage decree stating you have entered into a marriage with the person of your choice. As far as taking right away from states... this isnt something that the government should even be delegading on. There are more pressing issues at hand in the world.

Response by SSgt Gary Hendershot made Jul 1 at 2015 4:07 PM

SSgt Gary Hendershot — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:07:20 -0400

You are not alone. The SCOTUS is clearly allowing politics and popularity to drive their legal decisions, and that is not a good thing. They should have returned this particular issue to the states (based on every precedent and the intent of the 10th Amendment). But in reality, marriage in nearly every culture now, and throughout history, has been a religious concept, thus the government really has no business regulating it, authorizing it, or even voicing an opinion on it (based on the 1st Amendment and the right to practice one's religion of choice). If you were to argue that secular humanism is a religion, you could certainly argue that marriage within that religion can be between two people of the same gender. To rule that not allowing two people to wed is a violation of their first amendment rights would be reasonable. Having said that, what really needs to happen is the legislature needs to change all the laws governing marriage to keep the governments hands out of it. There should be no government sponsored benefit or penalty for being married. From the state's point of view, marriage is simply a legal contract, and anyone can enter into a contract. I see potential for this issue to get very ugly, with churches and people who are opposed to same sex marriage being demonized by the press and politicians and loosing their tax exempt status, loosing their right to practice their religion, and even going to jail. This ruling is blatantly unconstitutional and could very well lead to the destruction of the United States as we know it...

Response by SGT Ryan Vallery made Jul 1 at 2015 4:27 PM

SGT Ryan Vallery — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:27:33 -0400

Sorry, but human rights, and more importantly Natural Rights, trump even the Constitution. The only people against equality in marriage are homophobic religious zealots who would inflict their asinine religion upon us as ISIS inflicts their asinine version on Muslims in Iraq.

When you start stoning women for not being virgins on their wedding day (because that's in your stupid religion too, you know...) then you can make a fuss about marriage equality.

Worry about yourselves. Let people love who they want to love.

Response by PO3 Mitchell Haynie made Jul 1 at 2015 4:39 PM

PO3 Mitchell Haynie — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:39:27 -0400

What bothers me more is the constant and dangerous encroachment into what has been traditionally left to the State. No matter what SCOTUS decides I can assure you as a 6th generation Texan, we will continue to do things our own way. The reason we are building our own Gold and Silver depository and taking our Gold back from the Feds, and are warming up the secession documents.
If it pleases the homosexual bi-sexual and other sexual community to go to the local County Clerk and get a license to be married, go for it! If they can find a church (especially in Texas) that will do the ceremony, go for it! With Obama health care now "domestic partners" is a term that means nothing so company insurance now has no choice anyway (can you say further encroachment?) so go for it!
Until the homosexual agenda affects me directly such as being forced to do business under objectionable circumstances etc, go for it! When it does, if you think I can be forced into compliance against my beliefs, Go for it!
The only thing that really offends me personally is the militant, forceful, disrespectful, disgusting and often purely offensive way homosexuals and company promote their bill of particulars, such as the attached photo. Just doesn't get much more disrespectful and disgusting that this!

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jul 1 at 2015 5:53 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:53:44 -0400

When the state has to give you permission to marry, who owns you, yourself or the state? (I'm using the term state here to mean government in general, not one or more of the 50 states.)

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Jul 1 at 2015 6:28 PM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:28:18 -0400

A thought: what is a marriage license anyway? It is a piece of paper stating that these two people have the government's permission to copulate. Why is this the government's business anyway?

Response by SGT Melissa Goins made Jul 1 at 2015 7:29 PM

SGT Melissa Goins — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 19:29:10 -0400

This is mostly about all the religious extremists that have their panties is a wad about it's legalization. When (the fk) is everyone going to get the meaning of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ??? KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS. Feel free to let your religious beliefs shape your political views, but understand those beliefs were never meant to have merit in our government, hence "freedom of religion". A marriage certificate is a piece of paper that has no value in anyone's life other than the two people getting together. Mind your business and LET FREEDOM RING in the hearts of people that love each other. And stop deliberately ignoring that the Bible says LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. My God.... I'm so sick of all these so called Christians doing the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. Same Christians that cheat on their spouses, same ones that are false prophets, that lie and steal and are prideful to the point of sin... Ugh.... Sickening...

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 1 at 2015 8:22 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 20:22:46 -0400

I'm not going to try and respond to this. I found some guys who said exactly what I believe and they said it effectively...

http://www.pjtv.com/series/trifecta-105/a-christian-argument-getting-government-out-of-marriage-11100/

A Christian Argument: Getting Government Out of Marriage | Trifecta

Can Scott Ott make an argument that Christians should support the Libertarian belief that government shouldn't be involved in marriage? Check it out!

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made Jul 1 at 2015 9:20 PM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:20:08 -0400

I'm sorry but since when did someone having a orientation towards abnormal behaviour make it a freedom issue. Nature tells us that homosexuality is un natural. No country that has excepted it has escaped social collapse.

Response by CW4 Jeff Buss made Jul 1 at 2015 9:23 PM

CW4 Jeff Buss — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:23:24 -0400

Denying marriage to a significant portion of our population based on a "traditional" or religious definition is not a States' rights issue. It is denying equal protection under the law plain and simple. This is not a religious issue and using religion to argue against it goes against separation of church and state.

Response by LCDR Michael DeShazo made Jul 1 at 2015 9:45 PM

LCDR Michael DeShazo — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:45:36 -0400

Would someone please tell me how marriage is in any way within the purview of the seventeen enumerated powers of the Constitution?? The court got it wrong. Again.

Response by GySgt Richard Tingley made Jul 1 at 2015 9:47 PM

GySgt Richard Tingley — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:47:51 -0400

The 10th was what the southern states yelled about. That D.C. was stepping over there authority.

Response by SGT Jason Dworak made Jul 2 at 2015 1:08 AM

SGT Jason Dworak — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:08:25 -0400

Religious rights?!? You do realize you don't have to marry a dude right? How is rooting out bigotry based on old Jewish fairy tales leading to the decay of American civilization?

Response by PO2 Robert Cuminale made Jul 2 at 2015 1:12 AM

PO2 Robert Cuminale — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:12:18 -0400

The 10th Amendment ceased to exist when participation in Obamacare was mandated. The marriage decision will be a point of contention forever just as Roe v Wade is because the court over ruled the will of the people. Had the issues both gone to a popular vote the losing side would have been unhappy but would accepted it as part of the democratic process.
Note that Justice Ginsburg has expressed that view on Roe v Wade. In the marriage case Justice Roberts has stated that the constitution played no part in it.
The US is becoming France with a centralized government forcing the states (Departments) to become its administrative units charged with effecting Washington's (Paris's) will.
In the news: Today a couple in Billings Montana applied for a Polyamory Marriage License wishing to add a third person to their marriage. The clerk turned them away because the line asking about dissolution of the last marriage was replied to with "N/A".
The gates have opened.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 4:00 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 04:00:30 -0400

The SCOTUS ruling in no way limits the religious freedom of anyone. The Founding Fathers established a separation of church an state for exactly this reason. When I married my wife, that commitment and legal recognition of our relationship in no way prevented you or anyone else from practicing their religious beliefs. You can still attend the church or temple of your choose, pray and wear the symbol of your religion as you choose.

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made Jul 2 at 2015 4:18 AM

SFC Brian Gillum — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 04:18:31 -0400

Did you not realize that the 14th Amendments Equal Protection clause allow for certain impositions on the way the 10th Amendment is able to be exercised?

Response by SSG NicHOLAS Barton made Jul 2 at 2015 4:57 AM

SSG NicHOLAS Barton — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 04:57:32 -0400

Except the 14th Amendment prevents the States from passing laws to essentially discriminate against a portion of it's citizenry; which the marriage laws of many of these states did. I highly doubt that this ruling will lead to "civil war"-something that Allen West and others have been propagating on their blogs and sites. The continued belief that States can essentially disavow a portion of their population and choose not to recognize marriages from two consenting adults regardless of their sexual proclivity is based solely on Biblical teachings that need to go the way of the Dodo bird since we do not live in a Theocracy but a Constitutional Republic. The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution which is their mandate according the Article 3 of the Constitution and the last I checked the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Response by PO2 Matthew Mikulskis made Jul 2 at 2015 11:27 AM

PO2 Matthew Mikulskis — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:27:25 -0400

Worry about something that matters~ We have trillions in debt and you're worried about two gay guys getting the okay from the government?

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 11:40 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:40:39 -0400

Who are states to tell people they can't marry. This issue had to be finished once and for all. The states inactivity left thousands of peoples lives in limbo while denying these couples the legal protection they deserve. They finally got some sibilance of equality bit the fight is not over. This is the same as to right to marry for interracial couples in the 60s. People are using the same arguments against same sex marriage that they did then. It was found that they hold no truth to them then as they do now.

Response by SPC James Lowe made Jul 2 at 2015 11:41 AM

SPC James Lowe — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:41:11 -0400

I'm going to make this short and sweet.

God is not real. Religion did not found marriage. Those who protest gay rights/marriage are going to look just as idiotic as those who protested equal rights for blacks 40 years from now.

Civil war starting from gays getting equal rights? blow it out of your ass.

Response by SSgt Eric Anderson made Jul 2 at 2015 12:06 PM

SSgt Eric Anderson — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:06:09 -0400

I do and that's been my contention from jump street. It's also earned me the title "Homophobe" from some of my liberal acquaintances. Incidentally, the way the 5 Supreme Court Justices voted on this is counter to the way they voted on DOMA 2 years ago so their decision is rooted in neither the Constitution not Precedent. Although their appointments are considered "lifelong", they are still subject to impeachment in accordance with articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution. Dare we proceed?

Response by SGT Kevin Brown made Jul 2 at 2015 12:35 PM

SGT Kevin Brown — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:35:53 -0400

This is a direct violation of the 10th amendment and I couldn't agree with you more 1SG McKenna. The 14th endment protects the individual from state laws which violate their rights....as already identified within the constitution, a requirement overlooked in this ruling. Most Americans are so happy about the decision they can't even see that the decision was made unconstitutionally and has set the presidence for some very ugly possibilities. The subject of the ruling aside (this case could have been about driving or any other unidentified right), this an overreach by the federal government, giving power to the courts to establish law, where before they only had the powers to interpret it, and giving the federal government control over marriage, unconstitutionally. As I stated above 14th amendment only covers rights as identified within the constitution and in no place is marriage identified as a right. To make this legal, what should have happened is the ratification of an amendment identifying marriage as a right to all, then said ruling would not only be legal, but expected. Some gay rights groups were actually trying to do it this way, but not enough. Now the people have all but blessed off on this new form of legislation, all because they like the outcome, you know, ends justifying the means. I'd like to think our government is beyond using such means for political gain or personal agendas, but I would only be kidding myself. I am literally scared to see what new things the supreme court decides to make rights and therefore law, next. The states took a huge hit here and the 10th amendment was shoved under the carpet.

Response by SGT Robert Webster made Jul 2 at 2015 12:58 PM

SGT Robert Webster — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:58:52 -0400

The feds have ignored the 10th amendment along with our Constitution in many cases. It is time the states grow Balls and stand up to the feds in every case.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 1:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:54:13 -0400

This presidential team is set on permantly tearing at state rights. You can see the states are starting to fight back. I do agree that the supreme court way over stepped their boundries

Response by PV2 Kody Tillery made Jul 2 at 2015 3:10 PM

PV2 Kody Tillery — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:10:17 -0400

Absolutely, federal government has three jobs if anyone forgot, protecting the value of our dollar, make money and secure trade in and out of our country and protecting the freedoms of amereicans(military)
So our dollar is worth less, trade well fastrack check it out. And the size of our military now. All other issues is up to the states... We are a little backwards. Btw isn't reading the constitution suppose to be a requirement for a politician on the federal level? My questions are rhetorical in this case but my answer stands

Response by SSG Al Vadnais made Jul 2 at 2015 5:03 PM

SSG Al Vadnais — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 17:03:20 -0400

I think you might want to read the SCOTUS opinion, then go reread the amendments, all of them.

Response by SGT Michael Mulder made Jul 2 at 2015 6:54 PM

SGT Michael Mulder — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:54:23 -0400

Wide scale fraud for benefits? What benefits? Medical coverage through an employer? Maternity leave? I'm at a complete loss as to what benefit fraud could possibly occur? You mean welfare? Because heterosexual UNMARRIED people aren't already abusing that?
You need to cite specific abuses you THINK MAY occur before using benefit fraud as a basis for denying someone equal rights.
States rights? Too many single issues that individual states THINK they have a right to legislate and do it wrong based on the FEELINGS of individuals. That is the WHOLE PURPOSE of having a SCOTUS.
Your opinion is just that, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply here.

Response by SrA William Giraldi made Jul 2 at 2015 7:32 PM

SrA William Giraldi — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 19:32:08 -0400

If SCOTUS can state that same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, so is a concealed carry permit from any other state. The SCOTUS CANNOT pick and choose which side they are going to sway on. Personally, let the LGBT community have their thing, they just should not be allowed to violate Christian institutions to marry them; tell them to take a civil union option or another method and be done with it. In fact, if marriage is supposed to be between the couple and God (should they be Christian), then keep mankind out of it. Never the less, each state has its own Constitution and laws to follow and should not be forced to bow to whatever the SCOTUS says.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jul 2 at 2015 8:01 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:01:36 -0400

The Constitution has always contained a "full faith and credit" clause, requiring states to honor actions of other states. Why this one had to be different I don't know. Not an impingement on states' rights - the states agreed to this long ago.

Response by SSG Daniel Miller made Jul 2 at 2015 10:38 PM

SSG Daniel Miller — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:38:57 -0400

The fact remains that the Constitution is meant to ensure equality of all citizens of this country. How can you think we are equal if gay citizens don't have the same right to marry as hetero citizens? When states try to take away basic rights away from citizens, the fed has to step in. Furthermore, the primary argument against gay marriage revolves around religious definitions of what marriage should be. Last I checked, separation of church and state was a founding principle of this country.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 11:07 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 23:07:50 -0400

So now a 1SG knows more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than the US Supreme Court? Uh, whatever.

Response by SPC John Decker made Jul 3 at 2015 12:01 AM

SPC John Decker — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:01:15 -0400

The pertinent section of the 14th amendment....."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.".....While the states can not make it illegal, the people trying to get married still have to find someone to perform the ceremony. The piece I read does not, in any way violate the 1st or 10th.

Response by Sgt Israel Zinns made Jul 3 at 2015 1:56 AM

Sgt Israel Zinns — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 01:56:29 -0400

How is it a blatant violation of the 10th amendment? Marriage provides many federal benefits that are were being withheld from same-sex couples, that makes it a federal issue; especially when states are going out of their way to ban those specific people from being legally married. Say hello to the 14th amendment.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 5:59 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 05:59:34 -0400

I'm always confused when someone against equal marriage makes the claim that it infringes on their freedom of religion...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 9:08 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:08:03 -0400

I really don't see this as a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. This is more of an equality issue that has evolved over time and needed to be finally put to bed - so to speak. The States kept looking to the Federal Courts to make a decision that would apply nationwide. The court (regardless of right or wrong) finally made a decision.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 9:09 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:09:13 -0400

why is everyone so concerned over this? if two people YOU DONT KNOW get married. does it affect you? no. so why should it matter if one is a man and one a woman or both men or both women? It shouldn't this ruling is for the better.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 9:18 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:18:41 -0400

The bigger issue at play as I see it is not the marriage equality issue but the overall over-reaching and power grabbing that the Federal government has been making since the end of the Second World War. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The Federal Government often seizes upon power under the guise of because the issue or matter crosses state borders it is the purview of the Federal Government. In 1791 when the framers of the Constitution wrote the 10th Amendment the individual states retained a greater deal of power - and the Federal government had two major roles - pass a budget and provide for a collective common defense. The 10th Amendment today is much weaker than it was probably ever intended to be.

Response by PFC Tabetha Campbell made Jul 3 at 2015 10:19 AM

PFC Tabetha Campbell — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:19:16 -0400

The only dangerous one here is you 1Sg and quite frankly I have no respect for a "leader" who honestly has served with many gay people, who were "married" by home ceremonies because it wasn't legal yet and I'm pretty sure they saved your ass a few times, but still openly thinks the way you do. You're a dishonorable and disloyal man and you make me ashamed.

Response by SGT John Duffy made Jul 3 at 2015 11:36 AM

SGT John Duffy — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 11:36:43 -0400

Not at all. Being a member of the republic, states have to recognize contracts from other states. If you view marriage as a contract between two people, which it is, then the contract needs to be recognized across state lines.

Response by SSG Octavio Hernandez made Jul 3 at 2015 12:42 PM

SSG Octavio Hernandez — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 12:42:14 -0400

Lets not forget the principles in which our founding father built this country by. It makes me sad that people are so ignorant of what makes this country, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GREAT !!!!!!

Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders. "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams

Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." - George Washington

Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible. The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal. The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as: 1. Equal before God. 2. Equal before the law. 3. Equal in their rights.

Principle 7 - The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.

Principle 8 - Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." - William Blackstone

Principle 9 - To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law. "The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." - William Blackstone

Principle 10 - The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people. "The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority." - Alexander Hamilton

Principle 11 - The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... but when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Principle 12 - The United States of America shall be a republic. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America And to the republic for which it stands...."

Principle 13 - A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers. "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison

Principle 14 - Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure. John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone "in common." However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of "property rights."

Principle 15 - The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation: 1. The Freedom to try. 2. The Freedom to buy. 3. The Freedom to sell. 4. The Freedom to fail.

Principle 16 - The government should be separated into three branches. "I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government ... in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself." - John Adams

Principle 17 - A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government. "It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." - James Madison

Principle 18 - The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution. The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.

Principle 19 - Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Principle 20 - Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority. "Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it." - John Locke

Principle 21 - Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom. "The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. - Thomas Jefferson

Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men. "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law." - John Locke

Principle 23 - A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education. "They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare ... as a comet or an earthquake." John Adams

Principle 24 - A free people will not survive unless they stay strong. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." - George Washington

Principle 25 - "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.

Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity. "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated." Alexis de Tocqueville

Principle 27 - The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest. "We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them.... We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority." - Thomas Jefferson

Principle 28 - The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race. The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn't all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote: "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."

Response by SGT Matthew Ellis made Jul 3 at 2015 1:04 PM

SGT Matthew Ellis — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:04:07 -0400

Since marriage has become a legal institution, rather than solely a religious one, the christian definition of marriage does not apply when determining whether or not two people can legally marry in a secular state. I should also point out that religiously, marriage is not only not unique to christians, but it is far from the first religion to have it. If a particular religious organization doesn't want to take part in creating a marriage that is fine. That is why we have JOP in our system. But that religious group cannot bar those unaffiliated with them from engaging in a legal contract of marriage in general. If we want to let them do that we may as well let them determine the rest of our laws too.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 1:47 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:47:32 -0400

Since when was it a right of the state's to limit equality for people. Violating a person's civil rights because of there beliefs is covered by several amendments. Equality for all doesn't stop because some people disagree with it. The supreme courts ruling simply put ensured that gay and lesbians couples where not being discriminated against. Why should it be permissible for a state to decide if someone can live life the way they want to. This is America the land of the free...to restrict someone based on ther own beliefs seems to violate the constitution more than what the supreme court just did.

Response by SGT Matthew Madrid made Jul 3 at 2015 2:45 PM

SGT Matthew Madrid — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:45:01 -0400

Do you know what's really ironic?
The fact religious people hate homosexual people more than the plethora of child molesters found in their own churches.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 2:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:46:29 -0400

Last time I checked. Fraud for benefits wasn't under control prior to gay marriage being legal.

Response by CPT Bev Kodak made Jul 3 at 2015 5:53 PM

CPT Bev Kodak — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 17:53:30 -0400

Yeah, serial marriages to four different wives is sancrosanct. Is that fraud?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 8:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:04:39 -0400

Well it had to become a federal issue because of the entity known as the IRS, otherwise passing state by state would not have really been an issue

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jul 3 at 2015 8:36 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:36:43 -0400

Of course, but we all want to limit it to this? The Justice that ruled in favor seemed to forgotten the law and decided to make policy for the good of the few.

Response by CPL James "Scott" Edwards made Jul 3 at 2015 8:47 PM

CPL James "Scott" Edwards — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:47:39 -0400

It is a huge hit on the 10th Amendment. And those 5 knew what they were doing. If they were hell bent on deciding this way they could have left states rights in tact and relied on the full faith and credit clause, but they didn't. They took on the 10th amendment directly.

Response by Cpl Nikki Reynaga made Jul 4 at 2015 2:36 AM

Cpl Nikki Reynaga — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 02:36:09 -0400

Mixed race couples were once considered an abomination as well. Just like every other prejudice, the US' ignorant will move on and find a new minority to discriminate against.

Response by PO3 David Fields made Jul 4 at 2015 2:47 AM

PO3 David Fields — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 02:47:08 -0400

The decay of American society started when the divorce rate rose over 50%. What business is it of mine if two people want to get married, it doesn't affect me, gay or straight.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 5:52 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 05:52:48 -0400

I feel as though I've followed along with most people's points on here. The one thing that doesn't click for me is how some people (refering to the 14th ammendment) are referring to "equal protection under the law" as being synonymous with equal rights. I'm pretty sure protection and rights are defined differently. The rest of this thread just seems like teeter totter banter.

Response by SPC Chris Early made Jul 4 at 2015 9:16 AM

SPC Chris Early — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:16:05 -0400

well first i would like to say we shouldn't have to have the courts rule on the rights of a person for their sexual preferance, secondly we should remember that because a person is homosexual doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as all other americans and if we as a nation would have Realized that the court wouldn't have to make a decision on that.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 10:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:42:26 -0400

It will only pit marriage law against religious freedom by those who chose to do so. People have to understand that their religion is not law and that your religion is still free to marry whom ever they want. Seperaration of state and religion. It's thanks to McCarthy and his constituency in the 50's that we have any religious mention in our laws. Looks like it is beginning to be undone.

Response by CAPT Gary Foster made Jul 4 at 2015 1:30 PM

CAPT Gary Foster — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:30:35 -0400

Apparently the other four Supreme Court Justices opinions don't matter. Marriage was not created by the US. Therefore redefining it in our Supreme Court was disingenuous. Additionally, at least one of the judges if not more have conducted gay marriages in the past. That means they came in to this decision with a biased opinion, strictly against Supreme Court rules. They did not recuse themselves and therefore are in contempt of court. If they had voted against gay marriage the same would be true. This is not a win for America at all. It is a vast usurpation of power. My opinion. Let the hate speech continue.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 2:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 14:10:33 -0400

This is a violation in my opinion of the state rights

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2015 7:29 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 19:29:36 -0400

I think quite possibly you're an idiot. Carry on.

Response by SSgt Jeremy Eddy made Jul 4 at 2015 9:11 PM

SSgt Jeremy Eddy — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:11:46 -0400

People make it seem like the SCOTUS decision last week had any practical benefits, when--in reality--this was already decided when the Constitution was first ratified, and then blatantly stated in a decision in 1813. Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution is often referred to as the Full Faith and Credit Clause (stating "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."), and a decision in 1813 confirmed, "It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court." As long as one state in the Union allows same sex marriage, its legally binding in every other state. The SCOTUS decision last week just made it more convenient for same sex couples to marry in any state.

Response by Lt Col Jeff Montgomery made Jul 4 at 2015 10:38 PM

Lt Col Jeff Montgomery — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:38:28 -0400

Yes.

Response by SPC Tiffany Stokes made Jul 4 at 2015 10:45 PM

SPC Tiffany Stokes — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:45:09 -0400

I agree. There will be a lot of fraudulent unions just so people can get benefits like Social Security.

Response by SGT Josh Suchoski made Jul 5 at 2015 1:32 AM

SGT Josh Suchoski — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 01:32:08 -0400

The precedent was a set when the equal rights movement happened. Should we have stopped that? The answer is no, of course. But if we want to be honest about this, that is the legislation that set the precedent for this. I do think that this will lead into other types of marriage. For instance, what is to stop polygamy or poly triad marriages now? They are consenting adults, are they not? The problem comes when a government presumes to hand one person benefits and not others. Afermifive action and programs such as this do just that. You cannot say that we are "equal" when some are getting benefits that others are not getting. Now before I get blasted as a biggot, please understand that I believe that affirmative action was and still is necessary; only because the social structure created by a white male system still tends to give precedent to white males. The reality is this: we live in a world that is not fair. It will not be fair. We have made too much of a mess. We can slowly fix it, but it will be a mess for a long time. With all due respect, 1sgt you are basing your commentary on the ideal tha gay marriage is wrong. I believe that and I am guessing that you do as well. That, however is just our belief, and the decision sent down from SCOTUS doesn't change that. It only makes it legal to be married.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 5:29 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 05:29:11 -0400

There's really no excuse for denying someone their civil liberties based on the potential for abuse of those liberties. By that same token we should all be denied our second amendment rights. Needless to say I disagree with either aforementioned stance. The government has NO place dictating who can and cannot get married, that is a gross overreach of government authority. I strongly disagree with the notion that government has the place to tell me what guns I can own and what substances I can and cannot put in my body within the confines of my own home as well.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 7:27 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:27:03 -0400

Well 1sg marriage haven't been a religious institution since the government began issuing licenses and I have witnessed mor fraudulent lets get married for the benefits but have nothing to do with each other situations with straight people, more than I can count so allowing same sex marriages is not going to effect the sanctity of people's 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th marriage.

Response by SSG Red Hoffman made Jul 5 at 2015 7:49 AM

SSG Red Hoffman — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:49:28 -0400

I see this as being proof that the fingers of politicians and their agendas have infiltrated the highest court in the land and it makes me fear for my children's rights and freedoms. Do I blame the SCOTUS? Yes, I do. However, they are mere men and women who can be manipulated just as anyone else. It sickens me. I believe the SCOTUS members should be elected NOT selected.

Response by SPC Makissa Lewis made Jul 5 at 2015 9:24 AM

SPC Makissa Lewis — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:24:25 -0400

Would you ask the same question if, the Supreme Court, ruled in line of your own personal beliefs?

Response by SPC Steven Ling made Jul 5 at 2015 9:40 AM

SPC Steven Ling — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 09:40:22 -0400

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see any difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage. If you don't approve, you're not forced to attend the wedding. The government just cannot discriminate against your marriage if you're gay.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 12:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:10:45 -0400

You say "open the door for wide scale fraud" you don't think that straight couples aren't commiting fraud right now? Commiting fraud has nothing to do with gay or straight couple marriage.

Response by SrA Kevin Piatek made Jul 5 at 2015 12:25 PM

SrA Kevin Piatek — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:25:08 -0400

There is no war. Just because gay marriage,is legal doesn't stop anyone from practicing their,religion. Also the declaration of independence says everyone is entitled to pursuit of happiness.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 12:33 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:33:19 -0400

To the original question, I think it does overstep the boundaries of states' rights. On the other hand, I think that any state that wishes gay marriage to be illegal is denying it's citizens the basic human rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I wouldn't want someone to deny my right to marriage, simply because she's atheist or non-christian.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 1:03 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:03:49 -0400

You are forgetting that the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to decide if any law is unconstitutional and that is all they did. They people in certain states may not want gay marriage and it is up to them to rewrite the law so that it is constitutional. The states still have the power to regulate marriage, however, they must do it in a constitutional (What we all fight for) manner.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Jul 5 at 2015 1:12 PM

SGT Steve Oakes — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:12:55 -0400

I agree with the concern over possible fraud for benefits. Overall I see it as correcting a lack of separation of church and state. Now marriage is defined by the popular opinion of the people. Not any religious group or text.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 8:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:59:10 -0400

See?

Response by Maj Michael StClair made Jul 6 at 2015 7:41 AM

Maj Michael StClair — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:41:31 -0400

I can see both sides of the argument, and understanding the reasoning of the justices who were in the majority. I don't agree with that reasoning for a variety of reasons, but understand it. It follows closely with a progressive political agenda. That being said, the five justices destroyed nearly 5000 years of precedent which had established and held that marriage was and institution which established not only a spiritual bond, but a legal bond between a man and a woman. Rather than take the common sense approach and uphold the 10th Amendment they chose rather to uphold the 14th Amendment which when written had nothing to do with marriage at all, but was written for the protection of freed slaves. In doing so the Supreme Court introduced wide spread divisiveness into the country and has opened a can of worms. For example whether or not polygamy is allowed will be among those questions the court will have to answer, and because of this decision, that question can only be answered in one way - yes it is. Better yet, is my concealed carry permit issued by the State of North Carolina legitimize my carrying a concealed weapon in another state? Where do we go from here? I suggest that the tune the British played at Yorktown is appropriate in this instance. The World Turned Upside Down.

Response by SPC Richard Sargent made Jul 6 at 2015 12:22 PM

SPC Richard Sargent — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:22:57 -0400

Nope. 14th Amendment requires equal protection, period.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 6:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:33:45 -0400

The 10th Amendment that states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?
The role of the Supreme Court is to do exactly what they did, issue judgement on the law. How could the Supreme Court be violating the 10th Amendment, if it is doing exactly what it's intended purpose is?

Response by Cpl Adam Brooks made Jul 7 at 2015 6:46 AM

Cpl Adam Brooks — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 06:46:33 -0400

The 14th Amendment is used to override the 10th all the time. In this case, however, I think it was used inappropriately. Generally the 14th Amendment is only used as an override when most states have granted certain liberties or protections and there are only a few outliers that have not. For example: Louisiana was once the only state to not have trial by jury, but the Supreme Court put an end to that. There were still about 20 states that did not permit same-sex marriage, so I think the court jumped the gun on this one.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 8:27 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:27:16 -0400

When I here of discrimination of Soldiers in the military, I think, "How can this happen? Who in our ranks would allow for this kind of treatment of our Soldiers?". From reading a lot of the responses posted on this topic, the most revealing thing is how bigotry and bias runs so deeply in some of us that we fail to see how it effects our decision making ability. We have Lieutenant Colonels and Sergeants Major who are discussing states rights and freedom of religion rather than the blatant unequal treatment of civilians under same laws due to sexual orientation. If you can't wrap your head around how the LGBT community has been unfairly treated under discriminatory practices and been denied equal benefits the same as heterosexual couples then I am deeply concerned about your personal decisions concerning the men and women in your formations.

Response by PO3 Mitchell Haynie made Jul 9 at 2015 2:27 PM

PO3 Mitchell Haynie — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:27:54 -0400

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 7:24 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:24:37 -0400

I always enjoy how the first reaction to everything someone disagrees with immediately becomes the next thing that will lead to civil war. Calm down, we have been a union for over 200 years and I don't think this is what ends it.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Aug 4 at 2015 10:38 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 22:38:53 -0400

Let's see how long it takes before animals or plastic dolls are brought into the picture under this same successful argument the gays used.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2015 11:10 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:19 -0500

Absolutely a violation of the 10th amendment, and a defiance of the will of the people. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, and I don't remember anyone claiming that it somehow superseded or cancelled out the 10th amendment. In fact, no one at that time saw any conflict at all between them, since there isn't any. Of course, it took over 130 years for federal judges to begin discovering that the 14th gave them the right to overthrow state marriage laws. I personally have no opinion for or against same-sex marriage; the matter is of no concern to me and if it's a big deal to some people, they should use the democratic process like the citizens of my state (Washington) did. The abuse of authority by federal courts is concerning to say the least.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Nov 10 at 2015 6:08 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:08:36 -0500

Is quite clear! An inappropriate Intrusion by the SCOTUS under pressure from the POTUS who named 2 of the Judges to their Posts there. Is all Politics as usual, to accommodate their "boss", his ideologies and policies. Ideologies and Policies that have become corrupt and perverted in this particular case.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Nov 12 at 2015 1:38 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:38:27 -0500

One thing I really don't get why so many people are excited to the extreme on same sex marriage.
Has anyone been adversely affected by a same sex marriage?
Has anyone been forced into a same sex marriage?
I do understand that many people do not agree with same sex marriage for a variety of reasons, which are mostly personal reasons from what I am understanding and yes that includes your religion or lack thereof.
Some people will never tolerate anything different from their beliefs and that's their right, as much as many of us will think they are narrow minded, its still their right.
I am not a legal eagle, Constitution scholar or anything like that, just using my own upbringing and common sense to the table and hope I don't sound crazy.

Response by SFC Ronald Burris made Nov 20 at 2015 6:58 AM

SFC Ronald Burris — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:58:58 -0500

It doesn't matter about what Amendment when talking about the decision to allow Homosexual Marriages. The worst thing I saw when States did not agree with the Government that Federal Judges stepped in and basically stated that the will of the people did not matter and the States were forced to allow Homosexual Marriages. When I saw this I wondered if this is allowed when we are voting as a State on issues, when will it be where Federal Judges could rescind voting rights and put in force their person for President of the United States. Technically, this could happen with the way Federal Judges forced the States to require them to allow Homosexual Marriages even as I said, when the States voted against it. This should be a concern for every citizen of the United States.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 20 at 2015 7:34 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:34:42 -0500

Read clause 1 of the 14th amendment. This trumps the 10th amendment. It is the same rationale, I guess, that let the Court decide Roe v. Wade. It puts the feds in your back pocket, for better or worse:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

--------------------------------------

Clause 1 prohibits the states from denying anyone a privilege. That would include marriage.

Walt

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2015 3:25 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:25:09 -0500

Christianity's whole sale adoption of page pagan ritual that has no basis in scripture means that Christianity and all the folks offering it up for sale will readily change for society. That's why there are more and more churches accepting gay marriage.

Separation of church and state means the churches rules can stay out of government. Thank goodness it only took 2000 years to get to here.

Response by PO1 Gene Barfield made Mar 15 at 2016 3:51 PM

PO1 Gene Barfield — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:51:28 -0400

There is no 'states rights' violation in their ruling, because the primary basis for the ruling was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Every state, including the original 13, irrevocably accepted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land upon becoming a state, which specifically means all state laws and actions are subject to constitutional scrutiny. Those state laws and actions that can't withstand constitutional scrutiny are, therefore, invalid. Therefore, anything a state does that contravenes the Constitution is not lawful by definition. Preventing a state from acting in ways that contravene the Constitution is, therefore, inherently not a violation of a state's right because the state never had a right to do the act in question. One can wish that the Court had not handed down such a ruling, but wishing they'd done something else, or nothing at all does not affect the fact that their ruling is based on sound constitutional law.

The Court cited other constitutional clauses in handing down the marriage equality ruling too. There is very little room - none, actually - to argue successfully with such a sweeping constitutional defense of their ruling in this matter. Some people don't like it, but it is constitutional.

Response by SN Earl Robinson made Mar 24 at 2016 1:52 PM

SN Earl Robinson — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:52:55 -0400

Here's the thing. I personally find the idea of Homosexuality repugnant and disgusting as well as against the laws of Nature and God. But I only have the right to impose those feelings on myself. I have neither the right nor the moral standing to judge someone for living that lifestyle. I am as flawed as every other Human on the planet. Everyones life is their own experiment and however they choose to live it is that persons own right. And lets face it. We served our country to preserve those freedoms for everyone, not just those we agree with. I equate the right to be homosexual with the right to wave a confederate flag i don't agree with either of them BUT, I have no right to say you can't do that. Now as to the imposition of having someone Gay/lesbian serving in close quarters in military situations. The commander and chief has made it acceptable for those that live gay/lesbian lifestyles to serve openly. And he is the Commander and Chief. Does that mean those serving with them have to like it? No! But unless they choose to resign or not re-enlist they have to deal with it. End of subject.

Response by SSG James Arlington made Apr 5 at 2016 3:12 PM

SSG James Arlington — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:12:34 -0400

Slavery? Hummmm.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 13 at 2016 6:03 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:03:33 -0400

"VOTE"

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 13 at 2016 8:38 AM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:38:23 -0400

I see your 1 constitutional violation and raise you 1 more. Both the 5th and 14th Amendments state that our freedom cannot be taken away except by due process of law. That would include people's freedom to get married to the person they love, regardless of being the same gender.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Apr 17 at 2016 3:09 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:09:03 -0400

Yes, but I can not see why they think it's an act of terrorism.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Apr 18 at 2016 8:33 AM

MSgt John McGowan — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 08:33:20 -0400

!SGT My Christian views prevents me from approving same sex marriage. I have read most of the post and there isn't much in here about that. The trouble with all this is the gays got the lawyers in to fast and started sueing. Well there is a double standard. Is someone not bakeing a cake worth $135000 dollars? Where other businesses can refuse and get away from it. Not we are to the point that Bibles cannot be in sight. People say that they are injured for life if someone refuses to bake a cake or makes flowers for a wedding. When you give a freedom to someone, someone else is going to lose one. It's like one person can object to something and that person's rights over rule everone's rights. It got to be removed, or a song can't be played, I believe we have got to the silly stage. And my all time favorite the restroom issue. Now that one is going to be trouble.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Feb 27 at 2018 8:51 AM

MSgt John McGowan — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:51:38 -0500

1SG Andrew McKenna. Old subject now but the courts decide all to often case that does not belong to then. They make law. What or how can Federal Jufge decide on who can go in the military like the transgender case. But then agin it is Congresi allowing this to happen.

Response by SPC David Willis made Feb 27 at 2018 9:49 AM

SPC David Willis — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:49:04 -0500

I have yet to hear a reason against gay marriage that isn't rooted in religion. Its ok to be religious and against gay marriage, that's your right. It is not, however, ok for the government to rule according to your religion. The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water either. Only a fool would think we could make the jump from two consenting adults to children or animals. That would be like saying the next logical step to giving your kids skittles would be to give them crack.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 24 at 2018 5:28 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:28:29 -0400

The Federal gov't has been trying to erode States Rights ever since Thomas Jefferson became President. The states always wanted strong right and a weak Central Gov't, and the Feds want it reversed- this helped usher in the Civil War and tons of other ideas.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 22 at 2018 2:34 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:34:16 -0400

As with all things in laws, this is challenged and taken to the SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds then it is legal, if not , it may be changed to meet their criteria.