Navy NOT Allowing Gay Marriage Because of CO-AR15.COM!

[Ranger]

See, we all got rattled about this, posted like nuts and the Navy said "just hold on here, we are pissing on the WRONG group of people". [ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3]

Ok, so it had nothing to do with us, but it's fun to think so!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/11/navy-halts-allow-gay-unions-chaplains-complaints-lawmakers/

[Beer]

[Mtn.man]

I think Chuck Norris said Enough is Enough,,, and they folded.

[Lex_Luthor]

Well good! Looks like they remembered that the Armed Forces are supposed to withold and protect the Constitution.

[StagLefty]

Remember Charlie Sheen was a SEAL once-I'm sure he had something to do with this [ROFL1]

[SA Friday]

Well good! Looks like they remembered that the Armed Forces are supposed to withold and protect the Constitution.
No offense, but this issue has nothing to do with the constitution. The quotes in the article concerning upholding the constitution are dangerous IMO. The marriage act is simply that, a law passed by the govt. To infer the constitution supports the supports that law is incorrect. Congress has no obligation to write laws based on the legal support of the constitution. The laws only have to support "morality". This concept has been challanged and ruled upon by the supreme court many times. That's why we see laws that conflict with the constitution so often.

It really dangerous to suggest any law has equal legal precedence to the constitution. That's how lawmakers work around and keep constitutionally conflicting laws on the books, limit individual rights, and the only recourse is getting a judge to rule the law unconstitutional.

[Lex_Luthor]

Congress has no obligation to write laws based on the legal support of the constitution. The laws only have to support "morality". This concept has been challanged and ruled upon by the supreme court many times. That's why we see laws that conflict with the constitution so often.

It really dangerous to suggest any law has equal legal precedence to the constitution. That's how lawmakers work around and keep constitutionally conflicting laws on the books, limit individual rights, and the only recourse is getting a judge to rule the law unconstitutional.

True, I see your point. I typed in haste. Not that the Armed Forces are the ones that need to uphold the Constitution, that's the executive and judicial branches' job. They just don't do a very good job at it. Then the required litigation and $$ poured into combating an unconstitutional law, often times leaves things open and undealt with.

[KevDen2005]

No offense, but this issue has nothing to do with the constitution. The quotes in the article concerning upholding the constitution are dangerous IMO. The marriage act is simply that, a law passed by the govt. To infer the constitution supports the supports that law is incorrect. Congress has no obligation to write laws based on the legal support of the constitution. The laws only have to support "morality". This concept has been challanged and ruled upon by the supreme court many times. That's why we see laws that conflict with the constitution so often.

It really dangerous to suggest any law has equal legal precedence to the constitution. That's how lawmakers work around and keep constitutionally conflicting laws on the books, limit individual rights, and the only recourse is getting a judge to rule the law unconstitutional.


Agree 100 percent. Sometimes they uses justification for laws that don't really make sense through the Constitution. One has to wonder how they really got to that conclusion. Many laws are on the books because they have not been challenged for their constitutionality. Of course different eras in government and different eras of Supreme Court justices will obviously rule differently (somewhat) and the pendulum will go back and forth.

I don't like it when groups use such laws that really have no connection to the Constitution, people just buy it because they don't know what the Constitution says (I mean the general public for the most part).

[SideShow Bob]

The Navy's new Spec. Ops. Unit is named Seal Team 69. [ROFL1]

[Ranger]

I'm guessing saying that directly to a SEAL is probably never going to happen :).

[ghettodub]

I'm guessing saying that directly to a SEAL is probably never going to happen :).

But I would pay money to watch someone do that! [Coffee]

[spyder]

Good god, how much money and time are they going to waste on such a stupid issue?

[HBARleatherneck]

yes, i agree with spyder.

i am begining to think the whole world is gay. because everyone is allways talking about it.(overcompensation)
quick solution.

the government no longer issues marriage licenses. period
they recognize legal unions(contracts). period
gay. straight. poly. whatever.

if you find a religious leader willing to marry you, then get married. but leave the government out of it.

[spyder]

I was going to say that technically, you don't even have to try to be married to accidently get married (common law).

[Lex_Luthor]

I think my biggest problem with it is, why try to get gay marriages to happen on a military ship? Go to San Fran or something, but don't try to do it there....