Nothing to see there, mooove along.... it’s a “State’s rights” issue. Vote for Pedro!
********************
Are we talking gays serving in the military or are we talking gay marriage?
Gays serving in the military.. I’m not so sure that can be reversed, at least not until it starts to show problems for the straight people getting their rights stepped on.
If a president tried to reverse it, it would probably land in the SC, no? A president couldn’t EO or declare *no women in the military*. Gays are now openly serving in the military and I can’t see how it can be changed now. (I don’t know, but it would seem so)
As far as gay marriage— some say feds, some say states rights. I see problems with both. States rights— what happens moving between states?
If we leave it to the feds, they will shove it down our throat no matter—just like health care— just like every other thing where they assume their opinion is more valid and intelligent than their constituents. A president can’t do it on his own.
I’m leaning towards leaving it to the churches. Gov’t only recognizing and dealing with civil unions for all citizens. Marriage belongs to the church.
Anyhow, the whole thing is a big old mess—looks like the mister cursing the extension cord after I’ve used it for yard work.
Executive Order. Good order and discipline in the Armed Forces of the United States, of which the President is Commander in Chief and the solitary authority.
If he wants them out, they're out, no arguments. He could defy the Supreme Court if it came to it, and simply declare the matter to be under his sole jurisdiction IAW Article II of the Constitution.
You are correct in stating that it would be almost impossible to get this reversed. The military will cover up all the problems like always. To the outside world it would look like everything is working out OK. We will see the effects about ten years down the line.
Eliminating the lower fitness standards for women and implementing job specific strength tests would largely eliminate women in the service.