Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

Huh? It's federal law:



The question is why this should apply for a marriage license, but not a concealed carry permit? The argument is the same in both cases. The more restrictive state says that they should not have to honor the status granted in another state if the recipient would not qualify for said status in their state. And that's not without precedent. If you get a drivers license in one state, they'll let you use it to drive in another, but once you become a resident, you must qualify for the license in the state you are now living in. You can't just continue driving on the out of state license.

The same precedent applies to contracts and legal agreements as well. Ever read the small print on legal contracts, contests, or offers, where they say something like "except where prohibited by state law" or "not in <list of states>". That's because the laws for whatever the agreement is talking about are different in those states.

The GM argument is that despite this being allowed in a boatload of other things, that marriage should not be one of them. That somehow, marriage is special, and a marriage granted in one state, no matter how much it violates the law in another must not only be recognized in that other state, but that said state must grant that marriage whatever benefits and advantages the marriage laws grant, even if they were expressly written to prohibit their application to the couple in question. The point of the CC argument is to ask they question "why this, but not that". Maybe open up a few eyes.


Oh. And my point was that if we're going to try to create any sort of consistent methodology to answer the question "why this, but not that", it should be based on the whole positive versus negative thing. States should logically be least bound to honor agreements that obligate them to do something on behalf or the agreement holder, and most bound to honor agreements that merely require that they *not* prevent an otherwise free action on the part of said agreement holder. It costs the state nothing to not take an action against me. It costs the state something if required to take an action for me. IMO, that's at least part of the criteria we should be looking at when making this determination.

Nope.



Great. We're in agreement.



I don't know. That's not the point. The point is that how the GM advocates have wedged into the issue is based on the existence of marriage benefits in the target state in question. They argue that if they were granted a marriage in state A, and then move to state B, since state B has a marriage status with marriage benefits, state B must grant them that same status, with the same benefits everyone else in state B gets even if the new residents would not have qualified for that status if they had applied for it in state B initially.

I included the distinction because I didn't want anyone to think I was equating this to forcing a state to allow CC even if they don't have it at all. That would not be analogous to marriage since state B is not being forced to provide state A's benefits, but just the benefits based on the marriage status that already exists in state B. In theory, if state B doesn't have a marriage status or marriage benefits, then it wouldn't be affected at all by the person with the marriage license from state A. Clearly also, if state B doesn't have a CC status, but state A does, state B would not be forced to grant state A's CC status to anyone at all. Does that make sense?

BTW, I'm also not aware of any states that don't have some kind of marriage license and attendant marriage benefits. Just to follow the analogy even further.

Which is interesting because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly mentioned in the second of ten amendments in our Bill of Rights, while a "right to marriage" exists nowhere in the Constitution at all.

Are you really talking about "our society" or the society that exists in the liberal echo chamber you live in? I view "marriage" as a human right. I do not consider a state issued marriage status, nor any marriage benefits derived from such as a right. Rights are things you have innately and which can be taken away. You innately can carry an object around in your pocket. Even a firearm. You don't need a government to grant this to you, just to not take it away. That's why it's a right.

Marriage benefits are things given to you. Those aren't rights. Ever. I get that this is something you (and most liberals) simply can't wrap your heads around. But I'll keep trying to explain it to you. Maybe one day, you'll get it.

included the distinction because I didn't want anyone to think I was equating this to forcing a state to allow CC even if they don't have it at all. That would not be analogous to marriage since state B is not being forced to provide state A's benefits, but just the benefits based on the marriage status that already exists in state B. In theory, if state B doesn't have a marriage status or marriage benefits, then it wouldn't be affected at all by the person with the marriage license from state A. Clearly also, if state B doesn't have a CC status, but state A does, state B would not be forced to grant state A's CC status to anyone at all. Does that make sense?

No. That's probably why it's never been a very successful constitutional avenue of attack. Remember when interracial marriage was a thing people worried about? Wait, I'm sure you still do. Other people, though. Do you know how many states recognized out of state interracial marriages when they didn't recognize those in their own state? Zero. There were some federal court cases where the decisions relied on it around SSM, but they weren't particularly strong and if they weren't very likely about to be made meaningless, they probably wouldn't have had much traction.

So just like marriage licenses. Right?


It's like I have to lead you guys by the nose here.

In that all 50 states have laws have them? Yes? I guess. What is it your tiny brain thinks that leads us to? All 50 states have hunting and fishing licenses too, does that mean I can take my no limit Alaska salmon licence and empty streams in Oregon? All states have Bars for attorneys, as well, does that mean if I can practice law in Hawaii, that I can practice law in Michigan (hint, no. It does not).

Probably shouldn't be here, but not worth starting another thread.....

So what's priority at customer support, the phone or the physical customer? I seem to always lose. If I'm in person and someone calls, the call gets resolved first. If I call and someone is physically there, I get placed on hold. I know it isn't 100%, but I've always wondered what the standard is as this happened to me today.

Grammy got mentioned. Oscars had this. I didn't watch, this was just all over my twitter feed.

So, you know ... Nothing interesting in particular.

Exactly.

Um... Ok. I think you're missing my point. The argument being made by SSM advocates is that states *should* be required to recognize a SSM even if they themselves do not grant it

No, the argument being made is that sexual orientation is not sufficient grounds to not grant a licence. The same argument could be made for a hunting licence. States not granting those to gay people would also be an issue.

See the difference?


Exactly.

For future reference, this generally isn't the best response to having your argument dismantled completely unless you are a rhetorical *********. Which would explain a great deal, really.

The argument is that two people of the same sex should be able to be granted a marriage license, regardless of sexual orientation. The discrimination is based on sex not sexuality.

I could argue with Gbaji but instead I'll take comfort in knowing that Senator Cornyn and any other Republicans supporting his proposal are fully in favor of same-sex marriage.

I'm curious how Smash hides himself from the recent visitors. I bet he's on here hitting F5 waiting for people to post, but manages to hide it even though he's logged in ready to hit that post button.