2. The military is an institution. When I was enlisted in the Air Force I was serving the federal governemnt as a citizen of my state, which at the time, was Arizona. As to your question about Iraq, several towns have passed resolutions against the war. But the citizens of Cal serving in the reserves or active duty are goverened by a different set of laws, the UCMJ, becuause our society had a compelling interest to require military members to live under a different set of laws.
3. You do not think that in the present climate of political correctness, we can avoid the tyranny of the minority? Tyranny is tyranny.
So does having a national set of standards (our Constitution with your proposed amendment) violate the meaning of our Republic? Since folks should be able to move to a state that suits their mores (as per your republic definition) a national set of standards would seem incompatible with a republic.
This is exactly how our government was set up. Powers that do not fall under the state are delegated to the federal governent. It's in the constitution.
Huh? 10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The federal government was given limited powers to perform certain functions. Any power not specifically ceded to the federal government, by the people, are reserved for the States or the people themselves.
That does not mean the state has unlimited powers either. The State only has the powers granted to it, again by the people, in the state constitution. All other rights are reserved to the people. That includes the ability to enter into agreement and contracts (vows)..., which is what marriage is.
Now you may not like the idea of gay marriage, but the simple fact of the matter is that the government has no authority over marriage whatsoever.