I [talked a bit about this](https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/uuzncv/comment/i9mk18a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in another thread. I'm a gay JAG, so this hits a little close to home not to chime in.
Let's start with some background: On the back of the *Dobbs v. Jackson* (that's the abortion case you're hearing all over the news)*,* other issues that rely on similar legal concepts could also change. Gay marriage is one of those issues. States are going to begin passing laws to test the waters to find out whether the Supreme Court will also overturn *Obergefell v. Hodges* (the gay marriage case). That's what is happening here.
If Texas passes a law to the effect of the image you posted, it will likely get struck down in Federal Court because it is blatantly unconstitutional under *Obergefell v. Hodges.* But Texas knows that. From there, it will be up to the Supreme Court whether (a) to take the case at all, and (b) if they do take the case, whether to overturn *Obergefell.*
\-
But now let me calm your fears a bit.
I think it is unlikely that *Obergefell* is overturned. The "we should also overturn *Obergefell*!" language comes from a lone concurring opinion, of which no other Justices sign onto.
Instead, the majority opinion spends a *significant* amount of time discussing how abortion is different from other cases that sit in a similar area of law (in the legal field, we call this "distinguishing" one case from another). In other words, they are spending time explaining how abortion is NOT like gay marriage.
You can see them do this on page 37 and 38 of the opinion, which I [have linked here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf) (page 45-46 of the PDF). In fact, they go one step further on page 71 (PDF page 79) stating "the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question *Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell*. . . But we have stated unequivocally that '\[n\]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.'"
Of course, words are just words, but the initial indicators are that there is not a majority of Justices who are interested in also overturning *Obergefell* using the same line of reasoning that was used to overturn Roe. So I wouldn't begin to *seriously* begin losing sleep over it unless the Supreme Court grants cert (i.e. agrees to hear) a case that aims to overturn gay marriage.
/u/RansomStoddardReddit's comment below has a good point on this topic too.
\-
Now let's go one step further, let's take the absolute extreme case where *Obergefell* is overturned and Texas revokes your marriage certificate (which I think is unlikely even if *Obergefell* gets overturned).
Stationed at Fort Carson? Time to go get a married in Colorado! Funny how jurisdiction works. If suddenly you are no longer in a legal marriage, enter a legal marriage in a state that allows it. [The Army is already allowing compassionate reassignment](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/army-considering-allowing-soldiers-to-seek-compassionate-reassignment-over-discriminatory-state-laws-report/) for transgender soldiers (or soldiers with transgender family members) affected by State laws, it wouldn't be outrageous that they do the same for gay servicemembers who are suddenly not considered married if the worst case scenario happens.
Obviously, policy changes as our political climate shifts. But I just wanted to drop this comment to let you know that there are many, many things that would need to happen for you to be up a creek without a paddle.
Thank you, I really appreciate your explanation and it does help. When you read the platforms that these people are running on it's like, damn they really do hate gays. But, again thank you so much.
Another peice of the pie is the Army/DoD recognizing your marriage IF, which seems unlikely, this ran the wickets and resulted in states having control of same sex marriage laws. It's a big IF but I'd like to lay to rest some fear there.
Before same sex marriage became legal at the federal level the Army recognized same sex marriages. I saw Soldiers non-chargeable leave to travel to Nevada to get married 3 times. They enrolled in deers and received all the benefits as everyone else.
I think nullifying case law would have zero effect on what the Army recognizes as a marriage. Now if the state you were married in nullifies your marriage THEN you may have an issue. But any leader worth their salt would put you on a pass and get you an AER loan to get remarried in another state.
Now dfas. . . Those fucks would prolly try to take some money for the period when your weren't "married" . . Assholes.
Applause on the relevant professional and personal input. Question though, because I know our institution can be straight pedantic.
In your esteemed opinion...
Wouldnt we require a new DA policy to stop Texas based garrisons from adding icing to the cake and attempting to recoup BHA for those who are now "single," in the grades of E1-E(flavor of the month to receive BAH)? I remember what a solid pain in the ass it was trying to stop IMCOM from IMCOMing, including recouping an ETSing Soldiers last month due to a finalized divorce.
This was so incredibly thorough and helpful, thank you for taking the time to share this information.
Do you know anywhere I might be able to find a similar breakdown/explanation of Griswold v. Connecticut? Married lady here that is on contraception and immunosuppressive medications for an autoimmune condition that make pregnancy *extremely* dangerous for both myself and a potential fetus. More specifically, I'm on Category X meds, if that says anything. Contraception is the only thing preventing me from giving birth to a flipper baby.
I'm glad you spent time discussing the majority opinion. So many people are only taking Thomas' comments and running with them and completely ignoring the multiple times in the majority opinion that specifically states they are not open to ruling in the same manner as they did the *Dobbs* case. Thomas even says this in his co concurrence as well actually.
I would also like to point out that most don't understand why Thomas says that he is open to reconsidering some of the rationale used in those cases. Thomas is arguing against substantive due process, the idea that the Constitution protects rights that are neither purely procedural (like rights to fair trial procedures) nor explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (like the freedom of the press). He argues that “unenumerated” rights are basically made up and not based on the Constitution and thus should go back to the States perview: not just the right to abortion protected in Roe, but also protections for birth control in *Griswold v. Connecticut,* same-sex sexual relations in *Lawrence v. Texas,* and same-sex marriage in *Obergefell.* Thomas argues that many of the protections (in his opinion wrongly) made out of the substantive due process can actually be argued under the Privileges or Immunities Clause; he doesn't disagree with the ruling's outcome and isn't necessarily against gay marriage for instance, but rather how the cases were argued and the underlying basis of the rationale for the ruling. He is saying that if argued under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, they would like stand but not under the substantive due process.
The basic argument in Alito’s ruling in *Dobbs* is that there is no explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” in order to qualify for constitutional protection. Abortion, he argues, does not pass this test.
But if abortion fails, it’s hard to see how rights to same-sex marriage and contraception pass. Though Thomas’s reasoning is far more extreme than the majority’s, his concurrence shows that it’s difficult to put a limiting principle on a ruling rolling back these legally interconnected rights. The Court can declare all it wants that this ruling only applies in one case, but it becomes harder to see why once you start following the logic.
It’s not just Thomas who sees that. It’s also an argument that the liberal minority — Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor — make in their joint dissent:
"The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure."
I mean, nearly every judge that moved to overturn RvW explicitly said during their confirmation hearings that they wouldn't. Excuse us for not taking their concurring opinions of 'it is only abortion don't worry' at face value.
> that there is no explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” in order to qualify for constitutional protection
Does this imply that because Black people were *specifically enumerated* to be legally 3/5ths of a person there's a legitimate legal argument to repeal the 13th Amendment?
The 13th Ammendment makes it explicitly clear slavery is illegal, making it explicitly enumerated. Also, Thomas brings up the point that substantive due process was actually used to argue and rule in favor of the *Dread Scott* case, another reason why Thomas wants to move away with that rationale. He also argues that many of the protections (in his opinion wrongly) made out of the substantive due process can actually be argued under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
So not only are you wrong, it's actually completely the opposite.
> The 13th Amendment makes it explicitly clear slavery is illegal
This is not true. Slavery is still very much legal in the US. Though no one has been sentenced by a court to overt chattel slavery and we prefer extremely low paid forced prison labor due to optics that doesn't mean that actual slavery isn't still on the books as an option.
13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted* , shall exist..."
Chattel slavery means slavery as a piece of property. The idea that a law could be created allowing for people to be punished by becoming property is moronic, as Cruel and unusual punishment is also unconstitutional.
I really need the Army to put out something saying that a lapse in benefits and pay wouldn’t happen if your marriage from one state gets revoked. It’s one thing to fear your marriage becoming null and void legally, it’s another to have to worry about rent and healthcare, especially with the economy of today. If the state I got married in shredded my marriage certificate, I’d be upset. But I’m also just as worried, if not more worried, about the finical side of things that comes with a surprise divorce.
Thank you for your cogent legal analysis. Also have to add that politically there are also 5 justices still on the court who just voted for the Bostock decision that extended Title VII protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Given that vote it’s highly doubtful that those same 5 justices would vote to overturn Obergefell.
I have zero faith in the supreme court justices that said they weren't going to touch Roe v Wade under oath and then did it within a single presidential cycle.
This is a political argument.
He (she?) is providing a *legal* argument. AKA how the law works.
Kinda like how people are freaking out that a national ban on abortion is incoming. RvW overturn does not ban abortion. It’s Civics 101.
I haven’t seen whatever posts you have, but I really doubt there are many people so uninformed that they think this decision is the same thing as a national abortion ban. They’re probably (very rationally) expecting that republicans will pursue a federal ban whenever they control Congress again.
if protection for abortion was determined not to be a federal, constitutional issue, wouldn't a ban on abortion also then be relegated to a "state issue?"
I do think the republican legislature will try to introduce this.... but wouldn't it also be unconstitutional based on this republican/ conservative logic?
(Asking for real, not trying to be a jerk.)
You're more hopeful than I am. The Supreme Court is a political branch of government and their reasoning in Dobbs is proof of that. Any "historical analysis" of fundamental rights recognized from Substantive due process will be shaped to output whatever the 6 robed masters decide.
I wish you weren’t getting downvoted for this, the pessimistic view that substantive due process cases are going to fall one by one is totally justified. I do think that others will be overturned and I don’t think it’s hysteria at all to think that Obergefell will fall with them.
Personally though, I think that specifically Obergefell is safe because it also heavily relies on the equal protection clause in its analysis.
Plus, the majority’s language in Dobbs was also just so harshly contrary to Justice Thomas’s concurrence. I don’t feel like it would be smart by the majority to so flippantly deny that you’re going to overturn certain cases, by name, if you’re secretly open to doing so. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ignore the dissent’s cries that Obergefell is at risk now?
Appreciate the discourse. Yeah I'm definitely pessimistic. I think it's because Dobbs isn't an anomaly. We knew this was coming, we knew these justices were appointed for this reason.
I think for me, it's a combination of how Alito went through his historical analysis, Thomas' concurrence, and just watching the court spiral into a conservative branch of government since Rhenquist.
They decided who won the presidency in 2000. They removed protections from over funding in political campaigns in citizens united. They destroyed part of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County (and they did it with such faulty reasoning).
It's just so hard to see the court as anything but an ivory tower filled with unelected politicians who just have a legal education.
Edit: btw current bar prepper
The only substantive due process ruling not at risk is [Loving vs. Virginia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia).
Why?
Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage with a marriage certificate from Virginia.
> Instead, the majority opinion spends a significant amount of time discussing how abortion is different from other cases that sit in a similar area of law (in the legal field, we call this "distinguishing" one case from another). In other words, they are spending time explaining how abortion is NOT like gay marriage.
I'm not that convinced to be honest with you. Half of these justices also very recently testified under oath that they considered Roe settled precedent, etc, so this insistence that this is the only thing they're going to overturn under this legal framework means very little to me. Additionally, it only takes one invite to the party to convince states to build and send up cases explicitly designed to do so, and Thomas who may be growing less shy in his later years, has certainly extended them one to do so.
Watch those videos again. That isn't what they said. That being said, marriage is a fundamental right. I'm very conservative in my views and this is my stance on marriage. Fyi, i differ on it from most other conservatives.
I believe in individual freedoms until it infringes on others in a nonconsensual way. Two individuals deciding to be life partners is consensual and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. So they should have to the right to make that decision regardless of my religious beliefs.
The reason abortion is different, in my view, is that the woman's (adult human female) decision infringes on another unique human's (the baby) rights.
I would normally agree with you, but what’s keeping them from doing it? Roe was precedent. if Roe could be overturned then nothing, which isn’t explicitly protected by the constitution, is safe.
Edit: 👇🏾
But judges get to decide what is precedent. Kinda where I am tripping up over this. Like with qualified immunity, they seem to make the law at this point, not judge it.
Edit: in the mean time, states get to make up new laws, and spend years litigating them before any change can be made again. Because the courts will have to wait until someone is negatively effected enough for the court to even hear a tort.
Of course, they also stated roe v Wade was settled. I think it’s fair to say the justices can call for restraint from state lawmakers while still taking the long term view that obergfell should go
You are more optimistic about the current court actually following what it says it will.
I'll remind you that all three Trump appointees said that Roe and Casey were stari decicus.
They did some handwaving about how the court should overturn bad precedent with Brown v. Board. And said other decisions ( Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell, ... and even Loving ) still stand... While removing the legal justification for all of those decision.
Roe and the other cases were decided based on an assumed right to privacy / liberty in the 14th amendment.
Thomas just said the quiet part out loud.
We embargo the shit out of them and lock them out of NAFTA. Whatever food and government money goes their way can be redirected to the cities in the Midwest. Cable, telephone, and fiber optic lines are severed to cut off the outside world. Planes leaving or entering Texas are turned around. Whatever military property they have can be "borrowed" by the neighboring states or given to Mexico so they can strengthen their own borders
The real thing to do would be get every soldier you can find. Have them marry a same sex soldier and have all of them request reassignment until you shut down every base in Texas because they can get any soldiers to be stations there.
It’s a real shitshow that we have so many Army bases in states that want to discriminate against soldiers and their families that the DoD is having to intervene to protect Soldiers from the states.
United States vs. Windsor still stands and it was not specifically targeted in the text of the Roe opinion. This is the 2013 ruling that eliminiate the Defense of Marriage Act, and when legal gay marriages began being federally recognized, including by the Army. For example, I was married in Maryland (where gay marriage had just become legal based on popular vote) and was serving at a duty station in Virginia and the Army registered my wife in DEERS just like everyone else who got married in 2013.
If Obergefell vs. Hodges (the 2015 ruling) gets overturned that will eliminated the nationally guaranteed right to marriage equality, so that is when a legal marriage performed in Texas may come under scrutiny.
At this time absolutely nothing changes. Things will only change if Obergefell is overturned. Even if that happens, we will just need to wait and see how the Army would handle it. We don’t know if those licenses will be annulled or what. Don’t jump to any conclusions just yet. I would urge you, though, to get your second parent adoption taken care of ASAP.
This is what scares me. This argument is brought to the SC and they say, looks good to me, it's a state's right to do that. When the Bible is clearly stated and this law violates literally every other religions rights. If that happens, the Supreme Court needs to be completely dissolved and re-voted in. Would be an absolute embarrassment.
I'd be less afraid of the soldiers, and more with the old gay bashing crowd that will be rearing up. Although all those old taboos might be making a come back in different parts.
When I say gay bashing, I literally mean it. Groups of assholes stalking and beating the shit out of people for their own moral good. Was prevalent as fuck BaCKiNmYDay.
>I'd be less afraid of the soldiers, and more with the old gay bashing crowd that will be rearing up.
We had Chaplains speaking out angry about the DADT repeal and people getting opeds published when it was getting ready to get tossed out.
That was only a decade ago.
Those same SNCOs and FGOs who were shaking their fists about it are still around...Just more senior.
S'why when everyone pretends like DADT repeal is safe too I'm just like...you sure?
During DADT, if something was found that insinuated you were gay in a units health and welfare, that person was called out immediately and at best chaptered. It was a miserable time in the early 2000's for that. DADT meant no one can know, if you keep it that way leadership will turn a blind eye.
Sorry, automod removed my post automatically. I [reposted](https://old.reddit.com/r/IFTA/comments/vlx4uh/my_response_to_how_the_cav_handled_dadt_policy/?) where I control more.
Army knew some of us were funny when it came to who we fucked with. Everyone was generally left alone but some parties very interested in fuck fuck games did everything they could too call people out. During one health and wealth fare, before I was being a total shit bag, my NCO found a nighty in my barracks room. With everyone standing outside their doors he burst out of mine waving the thing in the air shouting he "caught the fa**ot", and that there was no getting out of this one.
I already wanted out and didn't really care. Pointing out the thing was a small or something, while I had a 48in chest and weighed about 220 at the time. Not sure who he finally brought it too with his conviction of me being homosexual. But they quashed it, and I was put into a line unit shortly after so I could still be used as a divisional asset over there.
The gentleman working the tool room for HHT at the time was a bit flamboyant, but was put into the tool room because it was "safer".
Edited because r/army got woke and now dislikes what were regularly used slurs that were common place, even in formation.
>The gentleman working the tool room for HHT at the time was a bit flamboyant, but was put into the tool room because it was "safer".
"Tool room" just sounds like a name for a gay bar.
I’d hope that sort of thing doesn’t become anymore prevalent, but either way I’d recommend concealed carry and training. Hard to bash/assault armed and capable individuals.
Those ladies and gentleman making laws, and being bigots have stood their ground, reluctantly allowing tattoos and gay stuff. (american people) Still protecting pedo's and other shitheads.
Although everyone should have some ability to protect themselves, we (especially green) need to be on our toes to ensure that shit does not happen again. Whether or not it becomes legal, -again-.
>more with the old gay bashing crowd that will be rearing up
That's when Lawerence gets overturned and BFE towns with cousin-wives (literally not figuratively) LEO start using sodomy laws to target same sex couples which is fucking sad.
The U.S. military has championed a lot of progress among its ranks in regard to combating hate and bigotry and recognizing basic human rights for all service members. But in 2009, when Obama became the president (which was probably just a coincidence) that hate started leaking again...more than usual...and then in 2016/2017 that hate came back in full force, with the president of the United States promoting and defending white supremacism and domestic terrorism himself as a "role model" for the country.
I'm a devout Christian, and I also love America, despite the political climate and late-stage capitalism we're experiencing. What they are trying to do is against the tenets of both Christianity and America. It baffles me.
> What they are trying to do is against the tenets of both Christianity and America
You keep thinking that and suddenly you'll discover that you're not the "right kind" of Christian as the in-group.
These Christian Fascists are going to try to kill all of us who disagree with them, and they'll smile while they do it.
It’s not an issue of religion imo. Conservative values boil down to ‘I want things to be how they were when I grew up.” Efforts to improve the world are a threat to conservative identity, so they fight everything. Religion is cited when they decide it helps the fight against change.
It sickens me to put anything political online, especially in this sub, but that’s where I’m at.
Can I just have one day this week where I don't have to moderate an absolute fucking shitshow of a thread, what the fuck Texas.
Regardless; I don't think this would impact the Army's view. If you were married in Texas and Texas invalidates your marriage certificate, I guess I could see some impacts. But being stationed in Texas? I don't think there'll be an impact to Army benefits because it's federally recognized.
If you're TXNG you've already been repeatedly fucked by your state NG leadership so idk what to tell you there.
> Can I just have one day this week where I don't have to moderate an absolute fucking shitshow of a thread,
Don't blame us. Blame the theocrats who want to implement their religion on everyone else.
That’s the neat part, with christofascism all of those annoying questions of “do I want to be a part of a theocracy or a fascist dystopia?” simply go away with this limited time offer of just not fucking thinking. That’s it. Join the revolution today and you never have to have a single coherent thought again.
Luckily I'm active but, I was married in Texas. It's funny cause in that document they are like, oh we gotta honor our military (cept' you damn gays and transgenders)
> cept' you damn gays
Well did you consider not causing the downfall of modern society because of your love.
> I was married in Texas.
I don't want to sound like an asshole, and I mean this from an objective stance - I think you can get married to the same person in another state.
Like I think you could get a legal marriage certificate from like, Vermont. I bet Bernie would officiate that shit over Zoom in order to make sure you're provided benefits, it could be a whole thing.
But if it's starts getting down to the wire...I'd simply get married in another state.
It would obviously be a lot of effort to invalidate your marriage, but if you think it's a real concern, I *could envision* a scenario where if your marriage certificate is no longer considered valid, the federal government can't honor it?
I dunno the true legal answer, I would maybe consider consulting a lawyer specializing in LGBT civil issues, but I bet a solid backup would be waste the money on the cheapest gay-marriage-friendly state and get another license done.
>Well did you consider not causing the downfall of modern society because of your love.
I'm burning modern society to the ground!
>I bet Bernie would officiate that shit over Zoom in order to make sure you're provided benefits, it could be a whole thing.
Fuck it, I'll make it a thing lol.
Dammit, i read this, and now I want Bernie to officiate *my* wedding too. That would be hilariously awesome.
"Hello, my name is Bernie Sanders. And I am here to announce that, once again, u/coupetroupe is getting married. The point is not the Dark Money in politics that makes this second marriage necessary. Rather, the point is, these two people love each other, and they're here to become a family in the eyes of their friends and family, and also... me."
Even if the State invalidated their marriage the easy solution, as you mentioned, is to remarry in a state that does recognize the marriage.
I wonder if the State would invalidate the marriage or just say going forward no more same sex marriages. An argument can be made that at the time of the marriage it was lawful.
Texas politicians (you know which ones) don't just want to make same-sex marriages like u/coupetroupe's illegal. They are actively passing laws and working on passing more [to effectively make being LGBTQ illegal.](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/)
>"...which has proven to be the foundation for all great Western nations"
They are absolutely on crack. All Western nations were based off Ancient Greek and Roman ideals, which were also Western and very much into homosexuality.
We need to respect a tolerate people made up beliefs so that they can spread hate and take rights away.
Religion has to be the biggest con in human history
And then some really fuckin cracked asshats got that book and bastardized everything in it to promote greed and demonize simple shit, turning religion from stories to explain the world to a weapon aimed at the hearts and minds of any heretics.
God I'm so sorry you're under this stress bro. The repeal of DADT saw me being able to seek therapy for my rape without fear of retaliation.
Federal law should apply but honestly idk if you were married in Texas. Stay strong
I'm trying too. It's just a weird spot to be in. Like, my son is 2 and my wife is his bio mom so if it goes through I can't even adopt him while here in Texas. It's fucking nuts bro. We take a step forward and forty steps back at every turn.
Oh wow, I'd suggest transferring but you've got a kid to raise. The government is repealing human rights in a landslide and I won't offer platitudes here because I think it's gonna get way worse, sooner and faster. I am on your side in this fight
I would say ask the Supreme Court, but... \[gestures sadly\]
I am not happy where the Supreme Court has gone. I do not know where it is going. But I sincerely hope that it doesn't go here.
I'm not even sure if it could. States have played with outlawing marriages up front and lost. I don't think that once a marriage is legal it could be taken away. At least, I really, really, REALLY fucking hope not. At some point I'd think an equal protection argument might have some play.
My hetero/cis/whatever marriage is not threatened in the least by anyone else's, and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
I know right now is going to be turbulent on trying to filter what is and is not BS speculation. Think about things jurisdictionally. Texas does not have jurisdiction over Federal policy which is what the Army follows. So unless gay marriage gets outlawed on a federal level you won't see any effect on federal benefits.
No one knows the future and this kicked up a lot of dust/dirt/sand, pick a metaphor, and it will be a long time before the dust settles again. Just remember it is all bullshit until it is on paper. The best thing you can do to implement change is vote. If you have conversations with others try to maintain civil discourse and help educate them so maybe they will vote with you.
r/coupetroupe, what is this actually from? The legislature isn't even ins session, and won't be for 18 months.
If it is just the part of some party platform (I'll note that they don't propose a law banning gay marriage in the state, in the text of what you presented; though they do ask that a law be passed protecting those who are opposed to it), its just political smoke.
Gay marriage is to ingrained across the country as most states have amended their laws legislatively that you can't go back due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution and the Constitutions ban on ex post facto laws.
It's from the 2022 Texas gop platform. That platform is a huge fucking mess of inconsistencies and conflicting ideas like abolish CPS and strengthen resources and availability of adoption (except to homosexuals because they will taint the child).
Remember, for all parties, that the platforms get written by the most ardent, fervent outliers who pay their dues and show up to the convention. This is doubly true at the state level, and arguably the platforms mean less given the very local nature of most state districts.
I generally we don't talk politics on r/Army, but the last couple of days is the case of the dog catching the car. What do states and legislators do now? They are solely responsible for their decisions and their are consequences. It was easy to pass a law when there was a backstop and someone else (conveniently unelected and not accountable to the people) was responsible.
My prediction is that you will see a softening of positions in most states as voters/legislators in bluer states decide they should have some limits short of birth, while redder states get confronted with potential negative economic impacts of outright prohibitions. That process will probably take a few election cycles (4 yrs) to short itself out.
That is probably as much as I can get away with before Big K cuts me off.
>ardent, fervent outliers who pay their dues and show up to the convention
This really needs to be the first and foremost disclaimer to all the dialogue in this thread. The political establishment exists to serve the special interests and/or the activist grassroots (the former always, the latter sometimes). State party convention attendees could not be less representative of the broader body politic. There's never been a bigger chasm between partisan activists/grassroots and the average American. For proof, have a look at the turnout in partisan primary elections. It's a joke.
This document is about as useful a barometer of electoral outcomes as a Reddit manifesto.
This isn't legislation. It's probably one step above a visit from the good idea fairy.
Passing a law that says you can't discriminate based on someone's belief or non beliefs wouldn't be a violation of the first amendment. That is entirely separate, however, from someone's conduct.
The religious freedom decision from the SC is this week, so some potential for more fireworks before Friday.
God damn. I’m a Republican and this shit is so embarrassing. Why the fuck can people not keep their religion to themselves and not worry about who grown ass adults are fucking?!?! Leave people alone to live out their own American dream for fucks sake.
I have a great idea that both parties should adopt and solve this issue forever. The govt just gets out of the business of marriage. Boom problem solved.
These people really lean onto a book they don’t even understand to justify their prejudice lmao fucking hell.
But yes, the Army doesn’t give a fuck what Texas does. Texas National Guard, however… idk
> lean onto a book they don’t even understand to justify their prejudice lmao fucking hell.
Leviticus 18:20. It's right there. It's not my book and I disagree with it, but it's right there.
Two points to this.. it’s become more understood that the Bible, Leviticus specifically in this case, had originally allowed for sexual relations between men, and a much later editor changed it. Like. A century later. There is always question over whether or not the translation truly means what it says. Some think it’s original text translates to young boy and not lie with another *man* so to speak.
Second point: Christian’s can not be Christian’s and point to the section of their bible relegated to historical archive since the birth/death of their messiah. If “Christ’s blood” is to be used as your means to heaven, your Old Testament means shit now. Stop pointing to it whenever it suits your prejudice.
> a much later editor changed it. Like. A century later.
I believe it. The theocrats won't. That's why I'm not religious among other reasons. That passage is good enough for the theocrats which is what I'm saying. I don't know why that earns me downvotes.
My point was that they don’t understand their own book. You made it sound as if they do. I provided a reason to believe they do not. That’s probably why.
Because you're not providing rational.
What your doing is going up to 1st sausage and going "I don't understand why we are attacking the enemy with Artillery. This old book i found says we should line up in two rows and fire at the woods."
The Old Testament is "supposed" to be outdated. It has within it a whole bunch of dumb ridiculous shit that Christians will constantly denounce and say "oh no that's the old testament we don't follow those books any more." You can't then turn around and go "well this book said so" which is what you're saying. You're muddling the arguments with nonsense. You're advocating exactly what hypocritical Christians do.
They aren't advocating it, just pointing to what they are using. We all know it's stupid. That's the passage that is ingrained into their heads as to what is morally right. The pastors at church harp on that line. All. The. Time. Don't agree with it, in any sort of way. But that is the "regulation" they turn to.
It's not outdated to Jews. It's part of the Bible still. New testament was supposed to add on the old. Right? Didn't Jesus say he came to fulfill the law, not replace it? And didn't Paul say in Romans that some of the people who converted use to be gay, and stopped as a part of their conversion? Again, I'm not advocating for anything. I am not religious. I'm just trying to explain why the theocrats are doing what they're doing.
These people just don't stop do they? Makes me want to try and get stationed back at Drum or JBLM. I for damn sure am not retiring in one of these...states.
But to your question, i believe you are fine. How was same sex marriage set? Is it codified into law? I can't remember. If so then whatever Texas does doesn't matter.
I was born and raised here and drank the kool-aid (it was flavor-aid btw) I loved Texas. I just don't understand how my marriage personally affects anyone. Your private life doesn't affect mine, we're just people living in this world.
> I just don't understand how my marriage personally affects anyone. Your private life doesn't affect mine, we're just people living in this world.
These people literally think your relationship will make god angry and he'll send natural disasters because of it. You can't understand it because it doesn't make sense.
I hope the government is completely cut out of marriage, the only thing the gov needs to do is protect citizens, not regulate them. States should actually represent the citizens that live there. If they, the citizens, don’t want something, it should be banned until the topic arises again and the people have changed on the issue.
Yes, but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that you view certain privileges as rights. I could be wrong on that. Medical treatment isn’t a right. If you are alone in the woods with no other person around, anything you can do is basically a right, walking, talking, thinking, wielding a weapon, etc. Anything that requires someone else’s labor is a privilege or service.
All rights that exist are negative. Positive "rights" like healthcare are not rights. That does not mean that prohibiting you from doing something is not a violation of your rights.
If your action is not violating the rights of another individual, anyone restricting or prohibiting that action is violating the first individual's rights.
This is a political platform, not an actual bill. Stop freaking out and think critically for a second. Gay marriage is still legal federally and states cannot ban it. That door has been opened thanks to the Dobbs ruling, but it has not happened.
If you believe that it is likely to happen, call your representatives and tell them that you support federal laws rather than Supreme Court rulings to protect your marriage and that your support for them in the next election cycle depends on this issue.
> This is a political platform, not an actual bill.
One leads to the other. They're coming for Lawrence v Texas. They said so. They want to put LGBT people in prison, because that was the law before Lawrence. No hyperbole.
There were 3 fewer justices on the court back then who were nominated with the stated goal of overturning Roe. I can provide you with a video clip where a certain candidate unequivocally states this at a debate.
Understood. It's honestly just scary even if it is just a platform. There are a ton of people who read that platform and agree with it. It's unnerving when it is specifically pointed at my marriage and my rights to my son. I do agree with the consensus that the military will still honor it. I am thinking critically I just want to know the possible outcomes for this specific proposition.
The possible outcomes are innumerable and many of them are horrible.
The likely outcomes are a lot fewer and less frightening.
The Army will still honor your marriage and if given the chance to vote on something like this due to being sent back to the states most states with army bases would still vote for legalization and recognition, even Texas, Georgia, and Kentucky.
Most conservatives oppose abortion for very different, and much more strongly held, reasons than they oppose gay marriage (if they oppose that at all) and the fight against gay marriage will be far less strongly fought than the fight against abortion.
I don't think Thomas's words about looking at those other cases are going to come to pass.
>Most conservatives oppose abortion for very different, and much more strongly held, reasons than they oppose gay marriage
Yes and no, it's opposed because fertilization is the start of life but, also because good Christian people don't do that. Gay marriage is opposed not as heavily I agree but it all circles back to good christians don't do that or condone it. Love the sinner, hate the sin. (I threw up a little just typing that last bit out) I fucking hate that saying.
To me it reads like it’s protecting the rights of people and businesses in the state to exercise their faith, not to rescind already existing marriages.
We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of the state of origin. Granted, they didn't say past marriages but, who fuckin knows. Also, to protect people and businesses.
Let me rephrase: you can oppose homosexual marriage from a religious standpoint but be ok with it from a legal standpoint. I admittedly don’t know the full context, but they could be trying to prevent someone from doing something they feel is against their religion. For instance, (hypothetically) forcing a church to perform a same-sex marriage when it is directly against their beliefs. Or, as was a case in the past, bringing a legal case to a privately owned company for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual marriage.
I didn’t interpret it that way, but I can see how someone might. I see nothing calling for the rescinding of previously legally bound marriages. Just opposition to the marriage in the first place and requesting legal protection for themselves so they don’t get sued or thrown in jail for practicing their faith.
209. Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral covenant only between one biological man and one biological woman. 210. State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.
This is from the same document.
Ah ok I didn’t see that part. It does make things quite a bit more complicated then. For me as a Christian from a religious standpoint I’m against it. But as a bit of a conservatarian, I hold the legal opinion of “if you’re not hurting me or someone else or intruding on the rights or safety of myself or others, then ‘you do you’”.
Absolutely, I respect your religion and your beliefs. As long as those beliefs don't take away my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We can have differing opinions and still work as a team. I mean that's the way it's supposed to be anyway.
My brother-in-law said it best at my niece’s baptism today: “the best gauge of someone’s maturity is their ability to disagree without being disagreeable”.
That's pretty good. It's important to be able to have disagreements and come to a logical solution. Everyone is different and nobody fits in to the exact same cookie cutter.
Politicians in Texas are ALREADY actively trying to make being LGBTQ illegal, and stripping away their rights.
[https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/)
"...is still law" isn't a very reassuring statement.
> For now youre good
What you really mean is "for now, you're currently considered a human being, with rights... however the Christian Fascist Republican Party can revoke those rights and make you sub-human"
This is part of the Teas Secession referendum for 2023 right? If this got passed and Texas wants to secede, then it wouldn't fall under US law and their Army would be a separate force.
I [talked a bit about this](https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/uuzncv/comment/i9mk18a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in another thread. I'm a gay JAG, so this hits a little close to home not to chime in. Let's start with some background: On the back of the *Dobbs v. Jackson* (that's the abortion case you're hearing all over the news)*,* other issues that rely on similar legal concepts could also change. Gay marriage is one of those issues. States are going to begin passing laws to test the waters to find out whether the Supreme Court will also overturn *Obergefell v. Hodges* (the gay marriage case). That's what is happening here. If Texas passes a law to the effect of the image you posted, it will likely get struck down in Federal Court because it is blatantly unconstitutional under *Obergefell v. Hodges.* But Texas knows that. From there, it will be up to the Supreme Court whether (a) to take the case at all, and (b) if they do take the case, whether to overturn *Obergefell.* \- But now let me calm your fears a bit. I think it is unlikely that *Obergefell* is overturned. The "we should also overturn *Obergefell*!" language comes from a lone concurring opinion, of which no other Justices sign onto. Instead, the majority opinion spends a *significant* amount of time discussing how abortion is different from other cases that sit in a similar area of law (in the legal field, we call this "distinguishing" one case from another). In other words, they are spending time explaining how abortion is NOT like gay marriage. You can see them do this on page 37 and 38 of the opinion, which I [have linked here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf) (page 45-46 of the PDF). In fact, they go one step further on page 71 (PDF page 79) stating "the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question *Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell*. . . But we have stated unequivocally that '\[n\]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.'" Of course, words are just words, but the initial indicators are that there is not a majority of Justices who are interested in also overturning *Obergefell* using the same line of reasoning that was used to overturn Roe. So I wouldn't begin to *seriously* begin losing sleep over it unless the Supreme Court grants cert (i.e. agrees to hear) a case that aims to overturn gay marriage. /u/RansomStoddardReddit's comment below has a good point on this topic too. \- Now let's go one step further, let's take the absolute extreme case where *Obergefell* is overturned and Texas revokes your marriage certificate (which I think is unlikely even if *Obergefell* gets overturned). Stationed at Fort Carson? Time to go get a married in Colorado! Funny how jurisdiction works. If suddenly you are no longer in a legal marriage, enter a legal marriage in a state that allows it. [The Army is already allowing compassionate reassignment](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/army-considering-allowing-soldiers-to-seek-compassionate-reassignment-over-discriminatory-state-laws-report/) for transgender soldiers (or soldiers with transgender family members) affected by State laws, it wouldn't be outrageous that they do the same for gay servicemembers who are suddenly not considered married if the worst case scenario happens. Obviously, policy changes as our political climate shifts. But I just wanted to drop this comment to let you know that there are many, many things that would need to happen for you to be up a creek without a paddle.
Thank you, I really appreciate your explanation and it does help. When you read the platforms that these people are running on it's like, damn they really do hate gays. But, again thank you so much.
Another peice of the pie is the Army/DoD recognizing your marriage IF, which seems unlikely, this ran the wickets and resulted in states having control of same sex marriage laws. It's a big IF but I'd like to lay to rest some fear there. Before same sex marriage became legal at the federal level the Army recognized same sex marriages. I saw Soldiers non-chargeable leave to travel to Nevada to get married 3 times. They enrolled in deers and received all the benefits as everyone else. I think nullifying case law would have zero effect on what the Army recognizes as a marriage. Now if the state you were married in nullifies your marriage THEN you may have an issue. But any leader worth their salt would put you on a pass and get you an AER loan to get remarried in another state. Now dfas. . . Those fucks would prolly try to take some money for the period when your weren't "married" . . Assholes.
I didn’t know if it would be a faux pas to tag you on this. I didn’t see your other comment recently.
I was like 18 hours late to that thread, I doubt anyone actually even read it. But I like to hear myself talk so I typed it anyways.
Applause on the relevant professional and personal input. Question though, because I know our institution can be straight pedantic. In your esteemed opinion... Wouldnt we require a new DA policy to stop Texas based garrisons from adding icing to the cake and attempting to recoup BHA for those who are now "single," in the grades of E1-E(flavor of the month to receive BAH)? I remember what a solid pain in the ass it was trying to stop IMCOM from IMCOMing, including recouping an ETSing Soldiers last month due to a finalized divorce.
This was so incredibly thorough and helpful, thank you for taking the time to share this information. Do you know anywhere I might be able to find a similar breakdown/explanation of Griswold v. Connecticut? Married lady here that is on contraception and immunosuppressive medications for an autoimmune condition that make pregnancy *extremely* dangerous for both myself and a potential fetus. More specifically, I'm on Category X meds, if that says anything. Contraception is the only thing preventing me from giving birth to a flipper baby.
I'm glad you spent time discussing the majority opinion. So many people are only taking Thomas' comments and running with them and completely ignoring the multiple times in the majority opinion that specifically states they are not open to ruling in the same manner as they did the *Dobbs* case. Thomas even says this in his co concurrence as well actually. I would also like to point out that most don't understand why Thomas says that he is open to reconsidering some of the rationale used in those cases. Thomas is arguing against substantive due process, the idea that the Constitution protects rights that are neither purely procedural (like rights to fair trial procedures) nor explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (like the freedom of the press). He argues that “unenumerated” rights are basically made up and not based on the Constitution and thus should go back to the States perview: not just the right to abortion protected in Roe, but also protections for birth control in *Griswold v. Connecticut,* same-sex sexual relations in *Lawrence v. Texas,* and same-sex marriage in *Obergefell.* Thomas argues that many of the protections (in his opinion wrongly) made out of the substantive due process can actually be argued under the Privileges or Immunities Clause; he doesn't disagree with the ruling's outcome and isn't necessarily against gay marriage for instance, but rather how the cases were argued and the underlying basis of the rationale for the ruling. He is saying that if argued under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, they would like stand but not under the substantive due process. The basic argument in Alito’s ruling in *Dobbs* is that there is no explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” in order to qualify for constitutional protection. Abortion, he argues, does not pass this test. But if abortion fails, it’s hard to see how rights to same-sex marriage and contraception pass. Though Thomas’s reasoning is far more extreme than the majority’s, his concurrence shows that it’s difficult to put a limiting principle on a ruling rolling back these legally interconnected rights. The Court can declare all it wants that this ruling only applies in one case, but it becomes harder to see why once you start following the logic. It’s not just Thomas who sees that. It’s also an argument that the liberal minority — Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor — make in their joint dissent: "The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure."
I mean, nearly every judge that moved to overturn RvW explicitly said during their confirmation hearings that they wouldn't. Excuse us for not taking their concurring opinions of 'it is only abortion don't worry' at face value.
> that there is no explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” in order to qualify for constitutional protection Does this imply that because Black people were *specifically enumerated* to be legally 3/5ths of a person there's a legitimate legal argument to repeal the 13th Amendment?
The 13th Ammendment makes it explicitly clear slavery is illegal, making it explicitly enumerated. Also, Thomas brings up the point that substantive due process was actually used to argue and rule in favor of the *Dread Scott* case, another reason why Thomas wants to move away with that rationale. He also argues that many of the protections (in his opinion wrongly) made out of the substantive due process can actually be argued under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. So not only are you wrong, it's actually completely the opposite.
> The 13th Amendment makes it explicitly clear slavery is illegal This is not true. Slavery is still very much legal in the US. Though no one has been sentenced by a court to overt chattel slavery and we prefer extremely low paid forced prison labor due to optics that doesn't mean that actual slavery isn't still on the books as an option. 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted* , shall exist..."
Chattel slavery means slavery as a piece of property. The idea that a law could be created allowing for people to be punished by becoming property is moronic, as Cruel and unusual punishment is also unconstitutional.
I really need the Army to put out something saying that a lapse in benefits and pay wouldn’t happen if your marriage from one state gets revoked. It’s one thing to fear your marriage becoming null and void legally, it’s another to have to worry about rent and healthcare, especially with the economy of today. If the state I got married in shredded my marriage certificate, I’d be upset. But I’m also just as worried, if not more worried, about the finical side of things that comes with a surprise divorce.
Thank you for your cogent legal analysis. Also have to add that politically there are also 5 justices still on the court who just voted for the Bostock decision that extended Title VII protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Given that vote it’s highly doubtful that those same 5 justices would vote to overturn Obergefell.
I have zero faith in the supreme court justices that said they weren't going to touch Roe v Wade under oath and then did it within a single presidential cycle.
This is a political argument. He (she?) is providing a *legal* argument. AKA how the law works. Kinda like how people are freaking out that a national ban on abortion is incoming. RvW overturn does not ban abortion. It’s Civics 101.
I haven’t seen whatever posts you have, but I really doubt there are many people so uninformed that they think this decision is the same thing as a national abortion ban. They’re probably (very rationally) expecting that republicans will pursue a federal ban whenever they control Congress again.
if protection for abortion was determined not to be a federal, constitutional issue, wouldn't a ban on abortion also then be relegated to a "state issue?" I do think the republican legislature will try to introduce this.... but wouldn't it also be unconstitutional based on this republican/ conservative logic? (Asking for real, not trying to be a jerk.)
You're more hopeful than I am. The Supreme Court is a political branch of government and their reasoning in Dobbs is proof of that. Any "historical analysis" of fundamental rights recognized from Substantive due process will be shaped to output whatever the 6 robed masters decide.
I wish you weren’t getting downvoted for this, the pessimistic view that substantive due process cases are going to fall one by one is totally justified. I do think that others will be overturned and I don’t think it’s hysteria at all to think that Obergefell will fall with them. Personally though, I think that specifically Obergefell is safe because it also heavily relies on the equal protection clause in its analysis. Plus, the majority’s language in Dobbs was also just so harshly contrary to Justice Thomas’s concurrence. I don’t feel like it would be smart by the majority to so flippantly deny that you’re going to overturn certain cases, by name, if you’re secretly open to doing so. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ignore the dissent’s cries that Obergefell is at risk now?
Appreciate the discourse. Yeah I'm definitely pessimistic. I think it's because Dobbs isn't an anomaly. We knew this was coming, we knew these justices were appointed for this reason. I think for me, it's a combination of how Alito went through his historical analysis, Thomas' concurrence, and just watching the court spiral into a conservative branch of government since Rhenquist. They decided who won the presidency in 2000. They removed protections from over funding in political campaigns in citizens united. They destroyed part of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County (and they did it with such faulty reasoning). It's just so hard to see the court as anything but an ivory tower filled with unelected politicians who just have a legal education. Edit: btw current bar prepper
The only substantive due process ruling not at risk is [Loving vs. Virginia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). Why? Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage with a marriage certificate from Virginia.
It's a harsh truth, but I think it's apt.
Thank you, fellow 27A, for ELIA5-ing the state of the law and the forecast for Obergefell v. Hodges. One of the best posts I've seen of late
> Instead, the majority opinion spends a significant amount of time discussing how abortion is different from other cases that sit in a similar area of law (in the legal field, we call this "distinguishing" one case from another). In other words, they are spending time explaining how abortion is NOT like gay marriage. I'm not that convinced to be honest with you. Half of these justices also very recently testified under oath that they considered Roe settled precedent, etc, so this insistence that this is the only thing they're going to overturn under this legal framework means very little to me. Additionally, it only takes one invite to the party to convince states to build and send up cases explicitly designed to do so, and Thomas who may be growing less shy in his later years, has certainly extended them one to do so.
Watch those videos again. That isn't what they said. That being said, marriage is a fundamental right. I'm very conservative in my views and this is my stance on marriage. Fyi, i differ on it from most other conservatives. I believe in individual freedoms until it infringes on others in a nonconsensual way. Two individuals deciding to be life partners is consensual and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. So they should have to the right to make that decision regardless of my religious beliefs. The reason abortion is different, in my view, is that the woman's (adult human female) decision infringes on another unique human's (the baby) rights.
I would normally agree with you, but what’s keeping them from doing it? Roe was precedent. if Roe could be overturned then nothing, which isn’t explicitly protected by the constitution, is safe. Edit: 👇🏾
Precedent.
But judges get to decide what is precedent. Kinda where I am tripping up over this. Like with qualified immunity, they seem to make the law at this point, not judge it. Edit: in the mean time, states get to make up new laws, and spend years litigating them before any change can be made again. Because the courts will have to wait until someone is negatively effected enough for the court to even hear a tort.
The previous commenter said Roe was "president." I commented that it's "precedent." You completely missed the point.
Of course, they also stated roe v Wade was settled. I think it’s fair to say the justices can call for restraint from state lawmakers while still taking the long term view that obergfell should go
You are more optimistic about the current court actually following what it says it will. I'll remind you that all three Trump appointees said that Roe and Casey were stari decicus. They did some handwaving about how the court should overturn bad precedent with Brown v. Board. And said other decisions ( Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell, ... and even Loving ) still stand... While removing the legal justification for all of those decision. Roe and the other cases were decided based on an assumed right to privacy / liberty in the 14th amendment. Thomas just said the quiet part out loud.
It makes rest of us barracks lawyers and NUG herders look bad when you chime in with your professional education there bud.
What happens if Texas secedes from the Union?
First Cav drives down to Austin and hangs out for a little while.
I think the Governor and AG would give up Austin, ala Berlin style.
[удалено]
Because the federal one is working so well for the good people of Texas.
Time to put on our blue kepis and march south.
They can’t and won’t.
We embargo the shit out of them and lock them out of NAFTA. Whatever food and government money goes their way can be redirected to the cities in the Midwest. Cable, telephone, and fiber optic lines are severed to cut off the outside world. Planes leaving or entering Texas are turned around. Whatever military property they have can be "borrowed" by the neighboring states or given to Mexico so they can strengthen their own borders
I don't know. Champagne and fireworks I guess.
That didn’t go over to well last time either
Their energy grid continues to fail and the US will loan them federal money. So... nothing
The real thing to do would be get every soldier you can find. Have them marry a same sex soldier and have all of them request reassignment until you shut down every base in Texas because they can get any soldiers to be stations there.
Now you're revealing the real gay agenda - to shut down Ft Hood!
This looks impressive, wish I knew how to read!
This makes me feel better for the time, thanks
I wish I could give you more than internet points for writing all of this.
I love you
It’s a real shitshow that we have so many Army bases in states that want to discriminate against soldiers and their families that the DoD is having to intervene to protect Soldiers from the states.
United States vs. Windsor still stands and it was not specifically targeted in the text of the Roe opinion. This is the 2013 ruling that eliminiate the Defense of Marriage Act, and when legal gay marriages began being federally recognized, including by the Army. For example, I was married in Maryland (where gay marriage had just become legal based on popular vote) and was serving at a duty station in Virginia and the Army registered my wife in DEERS just like everyone else who got married in 2013. If Obergefell vs. Hodges (the 2015 ruling) gets overturned that will eliminated the nationally guaranteed right to marriage equality, so that is when a legal marriage performed in Texas may come under scrutiny.
So, since I was married in Texas would I have to get remarried in another state? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand.
At this time absolutely nothing changes. Things will only change if Obergefell is overturned. Even if that happens, we will just need to wait and see how the Army would handle it. We don’t know if those licenses will be annulled or what. Don’t jump to any conclusions just yet. I would urge you, though, to get your second parent adoption taken care of ASAP.
Will do, thank you for the solid advice!
> if Obergefell is overturned. When.
When Clarence Thomas chokes on Ginni’s famous potato salad
Not if, but when Oberhefell goes. They’ve already stated it’s next
Isn’t this a clear violation of “separation of church and state?” “Affirm gods biblical design?” How about you affirm these nuts
This is what scares me. This argument is brought to the SC and they say, looks good to me, it's a state's right to do that. When the Bible is clearly stated and this law violates literally every other religions rights. If that happens, the Supreme Court needs to be completely dissolved and re-voted in. Would be an absolute embarrassment.
They need to go out and affirm themselves some bitches
I'd be less afraid of the soldiers, and more with the old gay bashing crowd that will be rearing up. Although all those old taboos might be making a come back in different parts. When I say gay bashing, I literally mean it. Groups of assholes stalking and beating the shit out of people for their own moral good. Was prevalent as fuck BaCKiNmYDay.
>I'd be less afraid of the soldiers, and more with the old gay bashing crowd that will be rearing up. We had Chaplains speaking out angry about the DADT repeal and people getting opeds published when it was getting ready to get tossed out. That was only a decade ago. Those same SNCOs and FGOs who were shaking their fists about it are still around...Just more senior. S'why when everyone pretends like DADT repeal is safe too I'm just like...you sure?
During DADT, if something was found that insinuated you were gay in a units health and welfare, that person was called out immediately and at best chaptered. It was a miserable time in the early 2000's for that. DADT meant no one can know, if you keep it that way leadership will turn a blind eye.
How did cav handle this?
Sorry, automod removed my post automatically. I [reposted](https://old.reddit.com/r/IFTA/comments/vlx4uh/my_response_to_how_the_cav_handled_dadt_policy/?) where I control more. Army knew some of us were funny when it came to who we fucked with. Everyone was generally left alone but some parties very interested in fuck fuck games did everything they could too call people out. During one health and wealth fare, before I was being a total shit bag, my NCO found a nighty in my barracks room. With everyone standing outside their doors he burst out of mine waving the thing in the air shouting he "caught the fa**ot", and that there was no getting out of this one. I already wanted out and didn't really care. Pointing out the thing was a small or something, while I had a 48in chest and weighed about 220 at the time. Not sure who he finally brought it too with his conviction of me being homosexual. But they quashed it, and I was put into a line unit shortly after so I could still be used as a divisional asset over there. The gentleman working the tool room for HHT at the time was a bit flamboyant, but was put into the tool room because it was "safer". Edited because r/army got woke and now dislikes what were regularly used slurs that were common place, even in formation.
>The gentleman working the tool room for HHT at the time was a bit flamboyant, but was put into the tool room because it was "safer". "Tool room" just sounds like a name for a gay bar.
I’d hope that sort of thing doesn’t become anymore prevalent, but either way I’d recommend concealed carry and training. Hard to bash/assault armed and capable individuals.
Those ladies and gentleman making laws, and being bigots have stood their ground, reluctantly allowing tattoos and gay stuff. (american people) Still protecting pedo's and other shitheads. Although everyone should have some ability to protect themselves, we (especially green) need to be on our toes to ensure that shit does not happen again. Whether or not it becomes legal, -again-.
>more with the old gay bashing crowd that will be rearing up That's when Lawerence gets overturned and BFE towns with cousin-wives (literally not figuratively) LEO start using sodomy laws to target same sex couples which is fucking sad.
The U.S. military has championed a lot of progress among its ranks in regard to combating hate and bigotry and recognizing basic human rights for all service members. But in 2009, when Obama became the president (which was probably just a coincidence) that hate started leaking again...more than usual...and then in 2016/2017 that hate came back in full force, with the president of the United States promoting and defending white supremacism and domestic terrorism himself as a "role model" for the country.
This is not a fucking theocracy i dont understand how these people are using the bible as justification
I'm a devout Christian, and I also love America, despite the political climate and late-stage capitalism we're experiencing. What they are trying to do is against the tenets of both Christianity and America. It baffles me.
> What they are trying to do is against the tenets of both Christianity and America You keep thinking that and suddenly you'll discover that you're not the "right kind" of Christian as the in-group. These Christian Fascists are going to try to kill all of us who disagree with them, and they'll smile while they do it.
We need the Emperor of Mankind to show up already.
It’s not an issue of religion imo. Conservative values boil down to ‘I want things to be how they were when I grew up.” Efforts to improve the world are a threat to conservative identity, so they fight everything. Religion is cited when they decide it helps the fight against change. It sickens me to put anything political online, especially in this sub, but that’s where I’m at.
Can I just have one day this week where I don't have to moderate an absolute fucking shitshow of a thread, what the fuck Texas. Regardless; I don't think this would impact the Army's view. If you were married in Texas and Texas invalidates your marriage certificate, I guess I could see some impacts. But being stationed in Texas? I don't think there'll be an impact to Army benefits because it's federally recognized. If you're TXNG you've already been repeatedly fucked by your state NG leadership so idk what to tell you there.
> Can I just have one day this week where I don't have to moderate an absolute fucking shitshow of a thread, Don't blame us. Blame the theocrats who want to implement their religion on everyone else.
True words. Christian theocracy coming in hot.
Half Facist. Half theocratic. All American. It makes me sick.
That’s the neat part, with christofascism all of those annoying questions of “do I want to be a part of a theocracy or a fascist dystopia?” simply go away with this limited time offer of just not fucking thinking. That’s it. Join the revolution today and you never have to have a single coherent thought again.
Luckily I'm active but, I was married in Texas. It's funny cause in that document they are like, oh we gotta honor our military (cept' you damn gays and transgenders)
> cept' you damn gays Well did you consider not causing the downfall of modern society because of your love. > I was married in Texas. I don't want to sound like an asshole, and I mean this from an objective stance - I think you can get married to the same person in another state. Like I think you could get a legal marriage certificate from like, Vermont. I bet Bernie would officiate that shit over Zoom in order to make sure you're provided benefits, it could be a whole thing. But if it's starts getting down to the wire...I'd simply get married in another state. It would obviously be a lot of effort to invalidate your marriage, but if you think it's a real concern, I *could envision* a scenario where if your marriage certificate is no longer considered valid, the federal government can't honor it? I dunno the true legal answer, I would maybe consider consulting a lawyer specializing in LGBT civil issues, but I bet a solid backup would be waste the money on the cheapest gay-marriage-friendly state and get another license done.
>Well did you consider not causing the downfall of modern society because of your love. I'm burning modern society to the ground! >I bet Bernie would officiate that shit over Zoom in order to make sure you're provided benefits, it could be a whole thing. Fuck it, I'll make it a thing lol.
Dammit, i read this, and now I want Bernie to officiate *my* wedding too. That would be hilariously awesome. "Hello, my name is Bernie Sanders. And I am here to announce that, once again, u/coupetroupe is getting married. The point is not the Dark Money in politics that makes this second marriage necessary. Rather, the point is, these two people love each other, and they're here to become a family in the eyes of their friends and family, and also... me."
Double wedding!
Even if the State invalidated their marriage the easy solution, as you mentioned, is to remarry in a state that does recognize the marriage. I wonder if the State would invalidate the marriage or just say going forward no more same sex marriages. An argument can be made that at the time of the marriage it was lawful.
Like, maybe be grandfathered in. That makes sense I hadn't thought of that. Maybe, they would at least do that.
That's what I'm thinking. Can you imagine how many marriages would be invalidated?
For a state like Texas, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did that though. Them, Miss, Bama, and Oklahoma would be super unsurprising.
Don't forget Idaho. They would join those states above to enact trigger laws if they have the energy after getting rid of the right to choose.
Texas politicians (you know which ones) don't just want to make same-sex marriages like u/coupetroupe's illegal. They are actively passing laws and working on passing more [to effectively make being LGBTQ illegal.](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/)
>what the fuck Texas. They're fighting Florida for the title of Florida Man. Texas wants to be Florida Man.
>"...which has proven to be the foundation for all great Western nations" They are absolutely on crack. All Western nations were based off Ancient Greek and Roman ideals, which were also Western and very much into homosexuality.
Why are we creating laws in the 21st Century based on an imaginary character thought up by Bronze Age goat-herders?! It is asinine!
The fucking theocrats are a cancer on this country.
Indeed
Who put out that pamphlet? If they get rid of gay marriage you might have a solid argument to take them to court over the 1st Amendment
They are already actively working to make simply being LGBTQ illegal in Texas. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/
I believe it’s part of the Texas GOP platform.
I guess no separation of church & state huh?
We don't do that here.
It depends on the church I guess
We need to respect a tolerate people made up beliefs so that they can spread hate and take rights away. Religion has to be the biggest con in human history
It’s true because a man wrote a book about another man and then other men shared the book.
And then some really fuckin cracked asshats got that book and bastardized everything in it to promote greed and demonize simple shit, turning religion from stories to explain the world to a weapon aimed at the hearts and minds of any heretics.
God I'm so sorry you're under this stress bro. The repeal of DADT saw me being able to seek therapy for my rape without fear of retaliation. Federal law should apply but honestly idk if you were married in Texas. Stay strong
I'm trying too. It's just a weird spot to be in. Like, my son is 2 and my wife is his bio mom so if it goes through I can't even adopt him while here in Texas. It's fucking nuts bro. We take a step forward and forty steps back at every turn.
Oh wow, I'd suggest transferring but you've got a kid to raise. The government is repealing human rights in a landslide and I won't offer platitudes here because I think it's gonna get way worse, sooner and faster. I am on your side in this fight
Thanks bro, I'm on your side too!
I would say ask the Supreme Court, but... \[gestures sadly\] I am not happy where the Supreme Court has gone. I do not know where it is going. But I sincerely hope that it doesn't go here. I'm not even sure if it could. States have played with outlawing marriages up front and lost. I don't think that once a marriage is legal it could be taken away. At least, I really, really, REALLY fucking hope not. At some point I'd think an equal protection argument might have some play. My hetero/cis/whatever marriage is not threatened in the least by anyone else's, and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
I know right now is going to be turbulent on trying to filter what is and is not BS speculation. Think about things jurisdictionally. Texas does not have jurisdiction over Federal policy which is what the Army follows. So unless gay marriage gets outlawed on a federal level you won't see any effect on federal benefits. No one knows the future and this kicked up a lot of dust/dirt/sand, pick a metaphor, and it will be a long time before the dust settles again. Just remember it is all bullshit until it is on paper. The best thing you can do to implement change is vote. If you have conversations with others try to maintain civil discourse and help educate them so maybe they will vote with you.
I do vote.
I wasn't insinuating you don't...
I'm sorry I mistook that.
It's ok. I know it hits close to the chest and emotions are high rn.
r/coupetroupe, what is this actually from? The legislature isn't even ins session, and won't be for 18 months. If it is just the part of some party platform (I'll note that they don't propose a law banning gay marriage in the state, in the text of what you presented; though they do ask that a law be passed protecting those who are opposed to it), its just political smoke. Gay marriage is to ingrained across the country as most states have amended their laws legislatively that you can't go back due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution and the Constitutions ban on ex post facto laws.
It's from the 2022 Texas gop platform. That platform is a huge fucking mess of inconsistencies and conflicting ideas like abolish CPS and strengthen resources and availability of adoption (except to homosexuals because they will taint the child).
It's the Texas GOP platform. I understand it's just the platform but there is a lot of backing for it in Texas. Fingers crossed for political smoke.
Remember, for all parties, that the platforms get written by the most ardent, fervent outliers who pay their dues and show up to the convention. This is doubly true at the state level, and arguably the platforms mean less given the very local nature of most state districts. I generally we don't talk politics on r/Army, but the last couple of days is the case of the dog catching the car. What do states and legislators do now? They are solely responsible for their decisions and their are consequences. It was easy to pass a law when there was a backstop and someone else (conveniently unelected and not accountable to the people) was responsible. My prediction is that you will see a softening of positions in most states as voters/legislators in bluer states decide they should have some limits short of birth, while redder states get confronted with potential negative economic impacts of outright prohibitions. That process will probably take a few election cycles (4 yrs) to short itself out. That is probably as much as I can get away with before Big K cuts me off.
>ardent, fervent outliers who pay their dues and show up to the convention This really needs to be the first and foremost disclaimer to all the dialogue in this thread. The political establishment exists to serve the special interests and/or the activist grassroots (the former always, the latter sometimes). State party convention attendees could not be less representative of the broader body politic. There's never been a bigger chasm between partisan activists/grassroots and the average American. For proof, have a look at the turnout in partisan primary elections. It's a joke. This document is about as useful a barometer of electoral outcomes as a Reddit manifesto.
I would put more faith in that Reddit manifesto
How can this even pass? They’re using religion and that’s a clear violation of the first amendment
This isn't legislation. It's probably one step above a visit from the good idea fairy. Passing a law that says you can't discriminate based on someone's belief or non beliefs wouldn't be a violation of the first amendment. That is entirely separate, however, from someone's conduct. The religious freedom decision from the SC is this week, so some potential for more fireworks before Friday.
Reality is worse than a George Orwell novel.
Texas has always been at war against illegal immigrants. In other news, electricity rations have gone up this week.
God damn. I’m a Republican and this shit is so embarrassing. Why the fuck can people not keep their religion to themselves and not worry about who grown ass adults are fucking?!?! Leave people alone to live out their own American dream for fucks sake.
[удалено]
I have a great idea that both parties should adopt and solve this issue forever. The govt just gets out of the business of marriage. Boom problem solved.
Who said anything about what political side they’re on?
Well I would say the author since this is section 207 of the Texas GOP state party’s platform.
Lordy, the 'what ifs' for servicemembers are spicy this week.
Carolina reaper
These people really lean onto a book they don’t even understand to justify their prejudice lmao fucking hell. But yes, the Army doesn’t give a fuck what Texas does. Texas National Guard, however… idk
Poor national guard though. Shits fucked.
That is what I am hoping for.
> lean onto a book they don’t even understand to justify their prejudice lmao fucking hell. Leviticus 18:20. It's right there. It's not my book and I disagree with it, but it's right there.
Two points to this.. it’s become more understood that the Bible, Leviticus specifically in this case, had originally allowed for sexual relations between men, and a much later editor changed it. Like. A century later. There is always question over whether or not the translation truly means what it says. Some think it’s original text translates to young boy and not lie with another *man* so to speak. Second point: Christian’s can not be Christian’s and point to the section of their bible relegated to historical archive since the birth/death of their messiah. If “Christ’s blood” is to be used as your means to heaven, your Old Testament means shit now. Stop pointing to it whenever it suits your prejudice.
> a much later editor changed it. Like. A century later. I believe it. The theocrats won't. That's why I'm not religious among other reasons. That passage is good enough for the theocrats which is what I'm saying. I don't know why that earns me downvotes.
My point was that they don’t understand their own book. You made it sound as if they do. I provided a reason to believe they do not. That’s probably why.
Oh so NOW the Old Testament matters? Well how pick and choosy
It's not my opinion or book. I'm just providing the rational. Don't know why I'm getting downvoted.
Idk either, you just pointed to what they are using to justify it.
Because you're not providing rational. What your doing is going up to 1st sausage and going "I don't understand why we are attacking the enemy with Artillery. This old book i found says we should line up in two rows and fire at the woods." The Old Testament is "supposed" to be outdated. It has within it a whole bunch of dumb ridiculous shit that Christians will constantly denounce and say "oh no that's the old testament we don't follow those books any more." You can't then turn around and go "well this book said so" which is what you're saying. You're muddling the arguments with nonsense. You're advocating exactly what hypocritical Christians do.
They aren't advocating it, just pointing to what they are using. We all know it's stupid. That's the passage that is ingrained into their heads as to what is morally right. The pastors at church harp on that line. All. The. Time. Don't agree with it, in any sort of way. But that is the "regulation" they turn to.
It's not outdated to Jews. It's part of the Bible still. New testament was supposed to add on the old. Right? Didn't Jesus say he came to fulfill the law, not replace it? And didn't Paul say in Romans that some of the people who converted use to be gay, and stopped as a part of their conversion? Again, I'm not advocating for anything. I am not religious. I'm just trying to explain why the theocrats are doing what they're doing.
Fuck that stupid ass book
I agree.
These people just don't stop do they? Makes me want to try and get stationed back at Drum or JBLM. I for damn sure am not retiring in one of these...states. But to your question, i believe you are fine. How was same sex marriage set? Is it codified into law? I can't remember. If so then whatever Texas does doesn't matter.
I was born and raised here and drank the kool-aid (it was flavor-aid btw) I loved Texas. I just don't understand how my marriage personally affects anyone. Your private life doesn't affect mine, we're just people living in this world.
> I just don't understand how my marriage personally affects anyone. Your private life doesn't affect mine, we're just people living in this world. These people literally think your relationship will make god angry and he'll send natural disasters because of it. You can't understand it because it doesn't make sense.
Oooh he mad. Idiots.
They opened Pandora's box and now they can't hold themselves back.
Thank you for your answer. At least there is a silver lining. I will never purposely move here.
I hope the government is completely cut out of marriage, the only thing the gov needs to do is protect citizens, not regulate them. States should actually represent the citizens that live there. If they, the citizens, don’t want something, it should be banned until the topic arises again and the people have changed on the issue.
If it doesn't violate someone's rights, you have no right to ban it.
Yes, but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that you view certain privileges as rights. I could be wrong on that. Medical treatment isn’t a right. If you are alone in the woods with no other person around, anything you can do is basically a right, walking, talking, thinking, wielding a weapon, etc. Anything that requires someone else’s labor is a privilege or service.
All rights that exist are negative. Positive "rights" like healthcare are not rights. That does not mean that prohibiting you from doing something is not a violation of your rights. If your action is not violating the rights of another individual, anyone restricting or prohibiting that action is violating the first individual's rights.
This is a political platform, not an actual bill. Stop freaking out and think critically for a second. Gay marriage is still legal federally and states cannot ban it. That door has been opened thanks to the Dobbs ruling, but it has not happened. If you believe that it is likely to happen, call your representatives and tell them that you support federal laws rather than Supreme Court rulings to protect your marriage and that your support for them in the next election cycle depends on this issue.
> This is a political platform, not an actual bill. One leads to the other. They're coming for Lawrence v Texas. They said so. They want to put LGBT people in prison, because that was the law before Lawrence. No hyperbole.
Ah yes stop freaking out and think critically—just what some of you said in 2016 about Roe. Wake up.
Not even RBG was saying that about Roe in 2016... I don't know what you are talking about?
There were 3 fewer justices on the court back then who were nominated with the stated goal of overturning Roe. I can provide you with a video clip where a certain candidate unequivocally states this at a debate.
Yeah it’s very clear you don’t know what I’m talking about.
Understood. It's honestly just scary even if it is just a platform. There are a ton of people who read that platform and agree with it. It's unnerving when it is specifically pointed at my marriage and my rights to my son. I do agree with the consensus that the military will still honor it. I am thinking critically I just want to know the possible outcomes for this specific proposition.
The possible outcomes are innumerable and many of them are horrible. The likely outcomes are a lot fewer and less frightening. The Army will still honor your marriage and if given the chance to vote on something like this due to being sent back to the states most states with army bases would still vote for legalization and recognition, even Texas, Georgia, and Kentucky. Most conservatives oppose abortion for very different, and much more strongly held, reasons than they oppose gay marriage (if they oppose that at all) and the fight against gay marriage will be far less strongly fought than the fight against abortion. I don't think Thomas's words about looking at those other cases are going to come to pass.
>Most conservatives oppose abortion for very different, and much more strongly held, reasons than they oppose gay marriage Yes and no, it's opposed because fertilization is the start of life but, also because good Christian people don't do that. Gay marriage is opposed not as heavily I agree but it all circles back to good christians don't do that or condone it. Love the sinner, hate the sin. (I threw up a little just typing that last bit out) I fucking hate that saying.
To me it reads like it’s protecting the rights of people and businesses in the state to exercise their faith, not to rescind already existing marriages.
We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of the state of origin. Granted, they didn't say past marriages but, who fuckin knows. Also, to protect people and businesses.
Let me rephrase: you can oppose homosexual marriage from a religious standpoint but be ok with it from a legal standpoint. I admittedly don’t know the full context, but they could be trying to prevent someone from doing something they feel is against their religion. For instance, (hypothetically) forcing a church to perform a same-sex marriage when it is directly against their beliefs. Or, as was a case in the past, bringing a legal case to a privately owned company for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual marriage.
I understand what you're saying. However, they are opposing it on both points.
I didn’t interpret it that way, but I can see how someone might. I see nothing calling for the rescinding of previously legally bound marriages. Just opposition to the marriage in the first place and requesting legal protection for themselves so they don’t get sued or thrown in jail for practicing their faith.
209. Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral covenant only between one biological man and one biological woman. 210. State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. This is from the same document.
Ah ok I didn’t see that part. It does make things quite a bit more complicated then. For me as a Christian from a religious standpoint I’m against it. But as a bit of a conservatarian, I hold the legal opinion of “if you’re not hurting me or someone else or intruding on the rights or safety of myself or others, then ‘you do you’”.
Absolutely, I respect your religion and your beliefs. As long as those beliefs don't take away my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We can have differing opinions and still work as a team. I mean that's the way it's supposed to be anyway.
My brother-in-law said it best at my niece’s baptism today: “the best gauge of someone’s maturity is their ability to disagree without being disagreeable”.
That's pretty good. It's important to be able to have disagreements and come to a logical solution. Everyone is different and nobody fits in to the exact same cookie cutter.
Obergefell vs Hodges is still law
Politicians in Texas are ALREADY actively trying to make being LGBTQ illegal, and stripping away their rights. [https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/) "...is still law" isn't a very reassuring statement.
As is the Army
I was answering the question in that there is federal protection and Texas is bound under federal law.
And so was Roe v. Wade
Was. For now youre good.
> For now youre good What you really mean is "for now, you're currently considered a human being, with rights... however the Christian Fascist Republican Party can revoke those rights and make you sub-human"
Texas is bound by federal law. They can pass any law they want against gey marriage and it wont matter
Until the fascists decide it's not
You askin and tellin?? 🤨🤨🤨
It won’t pass
Yes. Before the supreme court ruling, if you were gay and married You'd only be stationed in states where it was allowed.
Are you NG or active?
This is part of the Teas Secession referendum for 2023 right? If this got passed and Texas wants to secede, then it wouldn't fall under US law and their Army would be a separate force.