YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Exactly. It applies to everything because of this decision. Even laws around rights that you may not like.

I don't understand why the SC didn't just leave it as all states have to recognize other state's marriage licences and treat them much like driver's licenses. If you live in a state that doesn't allow for same sex marriage, its ok, just go get married in one that does.

ah yes, separate but equal. The favorite status of the conservative club; they just don't like to come out and call it what it is.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,614
13,297
146
869242d1392242710-apex-flood-damage-photos-closure-continue-well-into-2014-ups-truck-accident-thread-delivers-hehyan_zps03f4c668.jpg
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
ah yes, separate but equal. The favorite status of the conservative club; they just don't like to come out and call it what it is.

Nice. So now its linking someone to racism to get your point across. Again, nothing like demonizing people you disagree with. Sorry, but the SC decision has ramifications. Some may be good, some may be bad depending on your position.

SC already said the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and fundamental to the scheme of ordered liberty. So this ruling applies to that right as well, not just the right to marry.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Nice. So now its linking someone to racism to get your point across. Sorry, but the SC decision has ramifications. Some may be good, some may be bad depending on your position.

SC already said the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and fundamental to the scheme of ordered liberty. So this ruling applies to that right as well, not just the right to marry.

can't do it in this state? go to another state. Why? Because I think you should.

separate but equal. Why not admit it?


not sure why you think the opinion you quoted above, which specifically spells out the decision for marriage, only, is somehow talking about guns.

....or are you a member of the appliance/object-love club, like nehalem?

comparing fundamental discrimination against human rights to object ownership. You guys sure are interesting. ....I also like this phantom argument that you have created about how liberals don't want guns in all states, and they willfully discriminate against a right to own something....which really isn't possible. But whatever.
 
Last edited:

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,579
1,629
136
Love Allen West? Hate Alen West? No, I laugh at people who think Allen West has anything intelligent to say. Allen West is an idiot vacuum and all this post tells me is that he sucked in an idiot from a cornfield in Iowa...lol!
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
can't do it in this state? go to another state. Why? Because I think you should.

separate but equal. Why not admit it?

Yet you can return to your state of residence and be married just fine. How is that separate again?

I can't pump my own gas in NJ so I go to another state to do it. Damn NJ is so full of backwards conservatives that subscribe to separate but equal.

not sure why you think the opinion you quoted above, which specifically spells out the decision for marriage, only, is somehow talking about guns.

....or are you a member of the appliance/object-love club, like nehalem?

comparing fundamental discrimination against human rights to object ownership. You guys sure are interesting. ....I also like this phantom argument that you have created about how liberals don't want guns in all states, and they willfully discriminate against a right to own something....which really isn't possible. But whatever.

So its marriage is a more fundamental and protected right than the right to bear arms. Ok, good luck with that. Sorry, but those words apply to more than just marriage even if they only mentioned the right to marry. Any right falls under the purview of the 14th.
 
Last edited:

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
It's quite clear that some people seem to think that equal protection only applies to the laws they agree with. Any law that they don't agree with isn't afforded that same protection.

When the SC used the 14th amendment to justify their decision, they opened up Pandora's box. The ruling doesn't apply specifically to same sex marriage because of how it was worded. From the ruling text:



Those words don't apply to one thing. They apply to many. One of those happens to be the second amendment and how states handle firearm ownership laws, namely CCL.

It's also quite clear that some people are incapable of disagreeing with someone without the need to demonize them and to feel intellectually superior to them. Pretty sad state of affairs.

Your analysis of that quote is horrible. It's just basic background information on the Fourteenth Amendment, on how the right to marry is already Constitutionally protected, and on how the scope of Constitutionally-protected personal choices can change over time.

The next paragraph then explains that Lawrence v. Texas and Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the scope of Constitutionally-protected fundamental freedoms. The precedent set in those cases mandates that same-sex marriage be afforded Constitutional protection.

There is no "Pandora's Box" here.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Nice. So now its linking someone to racism to get your point across. Again, nothing like demonizing people you disagree with. Sorry, but the SC decision has ramifications. Some may be good, some may be bad depending on your position.

SC already said the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and fundamental to the scheme of ordered liberty. So this ruling applies to that right as well, not just the right to marry.

ok ok ok. Lets settle this out of court. I say we meet half way. You can carry but you cant conceal:

XzJhvof.jpg


Consult your legal team and get back to me.

- A lawyer
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Your analysis of that quote is horrible. It's just basic background information on the Fourteenth Amendment, on how the right to marry is already Constitutionally protected, and on how the scope of Constitutionally-protected personal choices can change over time.

The next paragraph then explains that Lawrence v. Texas and Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the scope of Constitutionally-protected fundamental freedoms. The precedent set in those cases mandates that same-sex marriage be afforded Constitutional protection.

There is no "Pandora's Box" here.

It was already established that marriage was a right. They went further by saying that every state has to recognize it and license it because of the 14th. Again, any right that doesn't have equal protection falls under this ruling. The right to bear arms clearly doesn't have equal protection across the country and even with certain states. Right are either equally protected or they aren't. Since marriage is a right and is equally protected then so should the right to bear arms. Clearly this isn't the case.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
Here is the 14th amendment.

14th Amendment said:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


xBiffx said:
That doesn't talk at all about what goes on within a specific state. It talks about what goes on for all citizens of the United States regardless of where they live. Again, if marriage law falls under the 14th, then surely gun laws do as well.

I don't post often, but I have to say that something is wrong in your head.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
It was already established that marriage was a right. They went further by saying that every state has to recognize it and license it because of the 14th. Again, any right that doesn't have equal protection falls under this ruling. The right to bear arms clearly doesn't have equal protection across the country and even with certain states. Right are either equally protected or they aren't. Since marriage is a right and is equally protected then so should the right to bear arms. Clearly this isn't the case.

Please educate yourself on the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment protects the right to marry a same-sex partner. It then explained that allowing states to not recognize marriages performed elsewhere is "one of 'the most perplexing and distressing complication' in the law of domestic relations," and that it "promote instability and uncertainty." It reasons that "if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined." This is logically sound; if a gay couple has a fundamental right to marry in-state, there is no rational reason to reject that couple's out-of-state marriage. A New York marriage is fundamentally identical to a Florida marriage.

This has zero implications on anything other than same-sex marriage. If concealed carry licenses were Constitutionally protected (they're not), the Court could choose to use similar logic to mandate national reciprocity. However, it is extremely unlikely that the Court would do so; per Heller, states are allowed to "reasonably restrict" firearms ownership, and states inarguably have a compelling public safety interest in only accepting out-of-state permits with similar training and background check requirements. A New York concealed carry license is certainly not the same as a Florida license.

But that's all conjecture because--again--concealed carry licenses are not currently a Constitutionally protected right.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
No, unless you can show what protected class of citizens is facing discrimination.

gay people are not considered a protected class either, they will most likely fight for that after this ruling, but as of now they are not..which is why gun enthusiasts feel this challenge of theirs has merit, as their rights are being infringed upon by a minority of the states.

Personally I hope this goes through and the concealed carry/open carry laws in states like mine are discarded in favor of the majority

And for what its worth I am not a gun owner.

It does seem that people are rather selective in that which they wish to allow...if the majority of the states allow open and concealed carry then why is it ok for a few more liberal states to ban that making those with valid permits essentially felons if they cross state lines, but conversely if a few states don't wish to acknowledge gay marriage they are strong-armed by the supreme court?
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeeha...y-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

Love him or hate him, Allen West always comes out swinging with great points. I would be interested to see if this goes anywhere. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution whereas marriage, regardless of makeup, is not. Unintended consequences will always be the bane of any liberal's existence. When you want to expand rights, you have to take the good with the bad. Everything in life has its trade-offs.

Challenges, literal (as in the court case) and virtual, likely lie ahead now that the SC has made its decision. It will be interesting to see where things end up.
Equal protection is written right there in the 5th and 14th Amendments. No, really, it is!

Also, Allen West making "great points" is hilarious. Thanks for that.

I do love how modern US conservatism is basically just a reactionary bag of approving anything that will "make libruuuuuuls explode!!!1".

Or to put it another way, I'm glad that you've admitted that us libruuuuls are all for expanding rights while conservatives seek to limit the expansion of rights whenever it will make libruuuls explode.

Nice bit of honesty. A faux-pas/gaffe, if committed by a politician.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,769
52
91
It's apples and oranges.

With the concealed carry issue, everyone is restricted by those states' laws, not specific groups of people.

I don't know about other states, but in California the only people that can get concealed weapon permits in urban areas are politically connected (congressmen and judges) or rich (donated to the Sheriff's re-election fund).

So no, the laws aren't being applied equally, and this fact has already successfully lead to courts striking down the discriminatory licensing practices of some counties.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Please educate yourself on the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment protects the right to marry a same-sex partner. It then explained that allowing states to not recognize marriages performed elsewhere is "one of 'the most perplexing and distressing complication' in the law of domestic relations," and that it "promote instability and uncertainty." It reasons that "if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined." This is logically sound; if a gay couple has a fundamental right to marry in-state, there is no rational reason to reject that couple's out-of-state marriage. A New York marriage is fundamentally identical to a Florida marriage.

This has zero implications on anything other than same-sex marriage. If concealed carry licenses were Constitutionally protected (they're not), the Court could choose to use similar logic to mandate national reciprocity. However, it is extremely unlikely that the Court would do so; per Heller, states are allowed to "reasonably restrict" firearms ownership, and states inarguably have a compelling public safety interest in only accepting out-of-state permits with similar training and background check requirements. A New York concealed carry license is certainly not the same as a Florida license.

But that's all conjecture because--again--concealed carry licenses are not currently a Constitutionally protected right.


God dammit, if I wanted facts, I wouldn't come to P&N. :p
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
gay people are not considered a protected class either, they will most likely fight for that after this ruling, but as of now they are not..which is why gun enthusiasts feel this challenge of theirs has merit, as their rights are being infringed upon by a minority of the states.

Personally I hope this goes through and the concealed carry/open carry laws in states like mine are discarded in favor of the majority

And for what its worth I am not a gun owner.

It does seem that people are rather selective in that which they wish to allow...if the majority of the states allow open and concealed carry then why is it ok for a few more liberal states to ban that making those with valid permits essentially felons if they cross state lines, but conversely if a few states don't wish to acknowledge gay marriage they are strong-armed by the supreme court?

A woman could marry a man, but a man could not marry a man. People were denied the right to marry due to their sex. Sex is a protected class. Are people being denied the right to a carry a weapon due to their sex?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
I don't know about other states, but in California the only people that can get concealed weapon permits in urban areas are politically connected (congressmen and judges) or rich (donated to the Sheriff's re-election fund).

So no, the laws aren't being applied equally, and this fact has already successfully lead to courts striking down the discriminatory licensing practices of some counties.

Are they being denied a CCP because they are part of a protected class?

I am in favor CCPs btw, but this is a bad argument.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,769
52
91
Are they being denied a CCP because they are part of a protected class?

I am in favor CCPs btw, but this is a bad argument.

Yes, I was denied a concealed weapons permit because I'm a fat mentally retarded lesbian African American Jewish trans-dolphin with three legs and no flipper.

In all seriousness, as far as I know the reasons for denial aren't public information (probably because they're completely arbitrary). The equal protection lawsuits that have been successful relied on a person applying with a known "good" cause, e.g. one that had successfully been issued a permit in that county, and being denied. Same circumstances + different outcomes = discrimination, regardless of whether a "protected class" is specifically being targeted.
 
Last edited:

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
It's quite clear that some people seem to think that equal protection only applies to the laws they agree with.
It's not clear at all. Nothing anyone said indicated that in any way whatsoever. Equal protection of the citizenry is a fundamental and vital protection afforded by the Constitution.

Any law that they don't agree with isn't afforded that same protection.
Laws are not protected, you tard. Citizens are protected from being afforded less rights than any of their fellow citizens. You really don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?

When the SC used the 14th amendment to justify their decision, they opened up Pandora's box. The ruling doesn't apply specifically to same sex marriage because of how it was worded. From the ruling text:

Those words don't apply to one thing. They apply to many. One of those happens to be the second amendment and how states handle firearm ownership laws, namely CCL.
No, no, no. You have some incredibly wrong ideas about how legal rights and restrictions work in our society.

It's also quite clear that some people are incapable of disagreeing with someone without the need to demonize them and to feel intellectually superior to them. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Look, you shot off your mouth and made an idiot out of yourself. Don't go getting all butt-hurt that everyone points at you and laughs.
 
Last edited: