Repel of DADT should be catalyst of getting the Federal Government out of the rite of marriage

Last week Congress passed legislation that will pave the way for the repel of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy in the United States military. In response, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" last week, "I think the country's evolving. And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with [the Defense of Marriage Act]" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/25/biden_says_repeal_of_dont_ask_will_pave_way_for_gay_marriage/. The undercurrent of tolerance in America is moving perhaps "evolving" from the bigotry, racist and sexist thoughts of the 50, 60, 70, and 80's. What Vice President Biden is missing is that while society is becoming more tolerant of alternative views and lifestyles it is not the role of government to enact legislation to reflect in the manner Democrats are wanting to.

Instead of eroding State rights by enacting laws that re-defines marriage our Federal government needs to focus on stripping out marriage from our tax codes. Marriage is not something that government should be involved in. The rite of marriage is something that citizens enter into and should be allowed to do so without the interference of government. That interference comes in many forms. That being said, if groups of people in California, Michigan, Iowa, etc...want to enact amendments to their State Constitutions to define marriage then so be it. The definition of marriage is not a power enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And if people within these States agree/disagree with the new laws they have options – they can leave the state, fight to propose legislation to change the law, or plainly accept the law of the State.

In the end, I believe that marriage should be done within the framework of one's beliefs and not something sanctioned by the Federal Government. Vice President Biden is correct we are becoming more tolerant as a society so let's take the right step and remove the Federal Government from the marriage industry instead of expanding it.

Openly Gay Military Personnel: Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" concept in the military is taking on new meaning after President Obama came out with a request that Defense Secretary Robert Gates convene a study to determine how lifting the ban on openly gay service members would affect the military. Gates has complied with the request by assigning his chief legal adviser and a four-star Army General. It is being reported that "Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who lead Army forces in Europe, will conduct the yearlong assessment" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35197645/ns/us_news-military/). The policy has been hotly discussed.

While I do not care if the person at post is straight or gay, my own only concern is that they do their job to the military standards already established. On the Chris Baker radio show a caller brought up the point of how many people are not going into the military because they cannot be openly gay versus the number of people who may leave or will not go into the military because of openly gay people. Is this a valid point especially in light of the difficulty recruitment has been? I am not sure. As I said, I do not care if the tank commander prefers blonde women or blonde men just as long that person does the job and follows the commands of their superiors.

I have not been involved in the military so I am unsure how the change will affect morale or even if it will have one at all. Is the change of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needed? How might the change affect the makeup of the military? As I said, I do not care one way or the other as all I expect is that the standards are the same for all and the job is done. Plus, do we need to spend money to change the current policy? Couldn't the money be used for other things like the deficit?