[ansel12]

Of course I read it, and responded to the strange post you made ignoring yet again the issue with childish avoidance.

In post 12 I told you. “”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?””

[randomhero97]

federal law HAS to address marriage at the federal level, for instance for military personnel.

It absolutely does not. All the federal government has to recognize is a contract.

Letting the federal government define/decide what is and isn't marriage from the beginning is what created this mess.

[Mariner]

"“”You keep slipping around the marriage issue, again, federal law HAS to address marriage at the federal level, for instance for military personnel."

You make that assertion as if it's absolute fact because you said so. That's like saying government must continue to fund Social Security indefinitely. Or that the USA can never default on its' debt.