HeloDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly--hypocrites on both sides of the argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was talking about attention/agenda from the left--as in the Administration and the high ranking civilians and Generals at the Pentagon. Are you honestly going to tell me that men getting sexually assaulted is what is driving this issue in Congress, the Administration, and the Pentagon?? No, it's not what is driving the conversation. What is driving the conversation are the women being assaulted--ie the Wilkerson case, the AF SARC getting charged with sexually assaulting a woman, the assaults against women at Lackland, women getting harassed and assaulted by recruiters, on and on. Politicians and upper level leadership (who might as well just be politicians) only use the men cases just to drive up the overall statistics. Fixing the problem of men getting sexually assaulted doesn't doesn't weigh as much compared to fixing the problem of women getting assaulted...you know, it has to do with that whole 'war on women' political discussion. I'm not saying women getting assaulted isn't an important issue and shouldn't be dealt with, just saying that it also fits the political narrative when you try to solve the problem. As for the media, most of television media favors the left and they're going to mostly report on whatever the political left is throwing up as the most important issue of the day. Since the men getting assaulted isn't receiving the political attention, no reason for the media to make it the front and center story.

Anybody take the moment to read the handful of comments? Not surprising, they're all pretty much negative in basically saying that they AF is screwing over the E's to give the pilots more money blah blah blah. I have actually tried to explain to some non-rated folks (O's and E's) why the AF gives the bonus, and though some actually get it from a fiscal sense (that it's cheaper for the AF to give the bonus) many still think it's BS. Given the current fiscal climate it will be interesting to see how the rest of the AF reacts to this one.

Nanny Cam Shows Intruder Beating NJ Woman Near Kid Pretty fvcked up. The only good thing is that it was all caught on tape so hopefully they can catch the asshole. Shame she didn't have a gun. I always keep my doors locked while I'm inside and if I hear something strange, I'm heading straight for *one* of my firearms...then I go investigate what I heard. Same thing when I hear a knock or ring at the door, unless I know someone is coming over...and even then, I may throw the little pocket pistol in the pocket. Poor Joe1234, he just can't believe something like this actually happened!

This doesn't further the agenda of the left, therefore it's not what gets the most attention. Pretty simple really.

Buds LE has a couple S&W revolvers in stock, specifically the black J-frame snubbie S&W 442 for $340, and then you can get the $30 rebate afterwards. http://www.budspolicesupply.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/4_9/products_id/3381

I think by the end of this week it won't make much of a difference--my money is going on that SCOTUS will strike down DOMA as unConstituional. Huggy'a argument about dead people is a foolish one (hard to have a relationship with a person who is not a person)...but the argument about multiple wives, marrying your siblings, etc still stands as a valid argument. IMO the church and whatever non-govt organization that is allowed to perform marriages should get out of the contract business and the State should get out of marriage business. States should enforce legal contracts, regardless of what combination of people want to enter into the contract. After that we can get rid of all the silly 'benefits' rules that the State and Federal to govt extend to people who are in these contracts. That way people can 'marry' whoever they want, anybody can enter into legal contracts for whatever reason (ie sharing a bank account, child custody issues, etc), and then I don't have to pay to support or not support various different lifestyles, regardless of whether of not I agree with them. Problem solved.

It's been quoted before, "Liberty for Me, but not for Thee". I have no doubt that transgenders will be allowed to serve in 20-30 years, if not sooner. All it takes is a President and a majority of politicians willing to push an agenda, and there you have it--and then it's here to stay. I don't have a problem with gay folks serving but at the same time then I just don't understand why dudes/chicks can't bunk together downrange and why I can't date the enlisted finance chick. Oh well.

Good deal man--let us know what you think when you get it. In other news, it appears that the S&W Nation's Finest Rebate folks will give you another rebate on an additional AR. I bought an Optics Ready AR last fall and got the rebate and just today received another rebate check for the 2nd AR I bought earlier this year. And I finally took the Waffen Werks AK-74 out this weekend and wow--it is a pleasure to shoot. I was strapped for time and didn't put more than 100 rounds through it but my initial assessment is that it will probably be a good shooter.

The Big Blue machine (ie the ones making the decisions on the bonus) doesn't care about me, you, or anybody else on this board. If they did, they wouldn't have given the boot to 150+ Majors in 2011. The hard truth is that we get paid to meet the standards, and don't get paid extra to exceed the standards. And those who exceed the standards are not always the ones getting promoted. What makes a good AC, IP, EP, CSO, officer, NCO, etc are not priorities of getting promoted, getting more money...it has to come from within, again, we get paid just to meet the standard. Some of my best MWS IP's when I was younger were the passed over Majors, not the go-getter Capt's or Maj's/Lt Col's on the staff. The passed over guys didn't care much about the BS, awards, trying to shine to get promoted, however, they did care about teaching the young guys and passing down their knowledge. They cared about the mission, the guys they flew with, and the young guys who were going to take their place--they cared about the young guy's ability to safety accomplish the mission. Like I said earlier man, it does suck to see you and other good dudes getting financially screwed over because of a technicality. I'd be pissed too. But I have a strong feeling that if you were a good IP/EP yesterday, then I'll bet you'll still be a good IP/EP tomorrow.