[ansel12]

"The military only has to deal with families because we have a large standing military that has no place in the U.S. Constitution."
"And for immigrants, the only question relates to preferential treatment of married couples under immigration law."

Both are ridiculous, wives and families have always had to be dealt with in the military, what do you think a military career consists of, waiting until you retire to marry? No pensions or considerations for your spouse if you die? No housing for you and your wife no matter where you live, no pay considerations for your spouse when you are stationed in various places on the globe?

Immigrants are just individuals? Not married or unmarried?

[Alberta's Child]

Like I said ... The U.S. Constitution was written at a time when the term "military career" was pretty much an oxymoron. Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise an army during a time of war by calling on the states to raise their own militias and turn them over to Federal control.

Immigrants are just individuals? Not married or unmarried?

Of course they're married or unmarried. But there doesn't need to be a distinction between married and unmarried immigrants under Federal law ... any more than there needs to be a distinction between a 26 year-old immigrant and a 27 year-old immigrant.

The word "marriage" is not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, which is itself a compelling argument against any distinction between married and unmarried persons under any Federal statute.