HeloDude

It got moved back to ACC because Big Blue didn't want their dedicated CSAR assets being used by SOCOM for anything else under the sun. Having dedicated CSAR under ACC allows the fighter guys to fly higher risk missions because leadership can say that they have CSAR ready to go in if something happens. If those same assets are being tasked as SOF units under AFSOC/SOCOM, then they might not be available to sit alert as dedicated CSAR whenever the fighter guys want to launch a mission. That's pretty much it in a nut shell. But sore some time now, the HH-60's aren't just doing 'dedicated CSAR', the CV's are up and running and can provide a different aspect to the CSAR/PR mission as shown in Libya (debatable), and we have budget issues...this all equates to AFSOC/SOCOM making another push to get the 60's and HC's under their command, and possibly get more CV's out of the mix too. My bet is we'll know something definitive by the end of the calendar year, and quite possibly even sooner as the CRH contract is supposed to be awarded by early October.

The original discussion/question that I responded to had nothing to do with anything federal...besides, repeal of DOMA has pretty much settled that one. Marriage licenses issued by a specific State are not federal contracts. Same with professional licensees issued at the State level--we're not talking federal service here, we're talking State to State. There's a lot more to living in this country than just us folks who are in the military/work for the federal government. As of now, I do not believe that Oklahoma (not the federal government or federal installation) 'has' to recognize a marriage license from Massachusetts. That being said, Article IV, Section 1 could make that unConstitutional, but then at the same time could force States to recognize all licenses of other States, which they currently do not as I previously pointed out. Like I said, it will be an interesting next few months/years to see how this all plays out.

You're correct in that The Constitution can be amended by the appropriate process--our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that things they could not foresee would come up and would need to be dealt it with. However, when was the last time a gun control measure was seriously offered up or 'debated' as a Constituional Amendment?? I'm not aware of this happening, not in recent times...and really not ever (tried to find one and couldn't, but by all means correct me again if I am mistaken). Dems and Republicans LOVE to circumvent The Constitution on a whole range of issues...once in a while they're struct down, most times they are not, hence why we have all these damn Federal and State laws to begin with. So again, if she or anybody else wants to truly 'debate' the issue of the 2nd Amendment or anything else in The Constitution then I am all for having that debate...just don't fool yourself to what is actually going on.

It's not supposed to be up for debate, regardless of how her constituents feel about the 2nd Amendment. I respect her military service and appreciate that she stands on her principles...but she, like almost all politicians, have selective outrage and are hypocrites. Just realize that they don't truly care about your Liberty when it's in conflict with their ideology.

Yeah, my timing is off--damn it, I was wrong, my bad. I knew it was practiced in times of David, etc but I thought Jewish law had outlawed polygamy by the time of Christ (ie ancient Judaism) because the Romans were't really cool with polygamy. Further research (ie google) gives a more common answer of 1000 AD and also of note, polygamy wasn't non-existent in the very beginning of the Christian Church. Thanks for the correction.

Pretty sure ancient Judaism was one man and one woman too, which would pre-date Christianity, though I could be wrong. Who says they get to wear any shoes at all?

So is anybody else following the Zimmerman trial on the news--as in keeping up with the highlights? The 'star' witness the prosecution had up on the stand yesterday and today was a piece of work to say the least. It was entertaining to watch some of the highlights...entertaining as a train wreck. I'd say her credibility is blown.

Well if it's mil dating mil, shear numbers prevented this from happening as much as it could happen now, just a fact. If I were a young E wanting to get out of the dorms, I personally would feel more comfortable entering into a "fake" marriage with a good buddy vs with a girl who I am friends with. If 2 dudes aren't gay and marry then there is less of an opportunity for one person to get upset when the other person is banging somebody else. Plus, as a straight guy, there are a lot more guys I would trust to not fvck me over than most girls--female friends get psycho once in a while, my guy friends, not so much.

If guys haven't actually separated, they can always pull back their separation papers/request to stay on. If the AF is that hard up on pilots, I'm assuming most, if not all, would be approved to stay on. Exactly...who wouldn't take extra money for doing the same job you were going to do anyway?

Shack. I know it may not have been with their legal lanes/precedent per se, but SCOTUS should have just ruled all entirely on the subject of gay marriage and been done with it. Now it's just going to be legal battles after legal battles and more tax money wasted on clogging up the courts. I will say one thing though--it will make an interesting debate on where States' Rights play into the whole mess. Abortion can not be purely banned but different States can have different limits, same with gun rights, etc...have to see how this one plays out.

While she's at it, she should go after the millions of people on food stamps, govt housing, etc who don't need it either...guarantee that won't happen. I applaud her for at least doing something right, but make no mistake--she picks and choses where to go after people who are receiving benefits who do not truly deserve/need them.

Lawsuit? For enforcing the regs and standards in the AFI? I doubt it.

Getting a little emotional there bud...I'd have a drink if I were you. I'm not saying it 'should' be null and void--I think you'll see from my postings over the last year or so that I believe SCOTUS should rule that you can't discriminate amongst any makeup of groups when it comes personal unions/contracts based on the 14th Amendment. That being said, Oklahoma has still said that they will not recognize a gay marriage, and unless I'm mistaken, nothing ruled on today changes that. Now, if a civilian gay couple who was legally married in Massachusetts moves to Oklahoma and become Oklahoma residents, will their new State allow them to file their taxes as a married couple or won't they? I have no clue...maybe it's already happened? By all means if someone has an article/info on this issue then please share. You're trying to say just because a State currently recognizes other marriage licenses from all the other States that they can't all of a sudden change their law. That being said, I think it would be unConstitutional if they did...but in that regard, then why have any State laws when it comes to marriage laws and just a national standard? Maybe that's where we're headed? I'm watching it unfold just as everyone else, but it is far from a done deal.

It doesn't work for Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses. It also doesn't automatically work for various professional licenses (ie pharmacists, lawyers, etc).

Brick is retired, and I thank him for his service. He has a different opinion on the matter and I say he's more than able to share it here. I'm sure he welcomes the spirited debate. There are a lot more issues and problems the country is facing, and I would argue that gays serving and gay marriage and the like is not one of those problems. The liberals cheering for 'Liberty and Justice' are liars as they want neither Liberty and/or Justice for all.

I know you were man. But the comment still stands!

Exactly--hypocrites on both sides of the argument.

By your logic men and chicks should be able to share a room together...but wait, it doesn't happen.

The left in this country will never support benefits being taken away...especially now to that they will be extended to people in their base. Same goes with the majority of those on the right. It's the destruction of the country IMO. I'm talking purely fiscal issues here.

I'm assuming that those with valid marriage licenses will get benefits and those without will not. As for the Texas example, I'm also then assuming that the State won't recognize the marriage, so if you're a Texas resident, you'll have to file your taxes a singe person, erc but the military (federal govt) will still give you dependent BAh, put them in DEERs, etc. It definitely opens the door to more issues...but hey, if I get stationed in Illinois, they won't recognize my CCW license from a different State--same thing.

To me it's not about marriage, it's about contacts. You can say you're married to whoever you want, but it all comes down to what the government recognizes in the form of a contract and then subsequently gives out benefits for being in such a contract (the root of the problem IMO). Here's the problem--social Conservatives don't want gay marriage and liberals/left moderates do. The problem is that the majority of both of those groups don't truly want Liberty.

Just looked it up (I'm bored)--according to AFI 26-2903 page 15, males are not authorized to wear nail polish. You should have said something. And as for Pawnman's comment: I hear you in that we want competent folks, but why can't we have competent folks who are also adhering to the regs and standards? Has the Air Force gotten that bad?

Uniform standards are still uniform standards regardless of who he banging or getting banged by. No shaving waiver--then he has to shave, period dot. You would have been totally within your lane to say something to him and/or his supervisor. As for the nail polish--you're saying he was wearing nail polish in uniform too?

Well contrary to what stupid PETA-type people believe, animals don't have Rights. And it's kind of hard to enter into a personal contact if there is not another person. I seriously don't understand the difference between gay marriage and plural marriage, marriage amongst siblings, etc.

Constitutionally it was the correct call. I'm actually somewhat surprised it wasn't a 6-3, 7-2 decision with Roberts crossing over, along with Thomas merely on Constitutional grounds. As for Prop 8...no clue how that will be ruled--it will probably be a 5-4 decision either way. What's funny is that the libs were calling SCOTUS a Right-Wing court after yesterday's VRA ruling where as today the libs are saying the Court was correct--bunch of hypocrites.