You told us about the open homosexuals that you served with under DADT, which isn’t the policy anyway, the next democrat president finished the job that DADT was meant to do, mission accomplished.
DADT was only meant to serve as a temporary delay, a public relations thing, but you must have known that.
You keep slipping around the marriage issue, again, federal law HAS to address marriage at the federal level, for instance for military personnel.
Would you ever grant homosexual military the same spousal rights as heterosexual members?
It was two and they were open, but one was sure light in the loafers and fairly obvious to anyone with gaydar.
It was later confirmed at a ship reunion in Las Vegas when he was fairly open about it.
The other was a woman who, anyone could tell, was trying to be a man.
I don't buy your contention that federal law has to address marriage. If the military doesn't address marriage at all, the members could sign a form indicating where they want their insurance to go to, and could also claim a dependent for housing etc.
So no, I am opposed to Federal sanction or interference in marriage in all cases.
Again, did you cast a vote in the POTUS Primaries or General election? If you did, you cast a vote for a supporter of DADT.
Right?