It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How gay marriage will help the pro gun crowd

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I'm a conservative libertarian. The conservative side of me is strictly constitutional and political. The libertarian side of me is for anything and everything as long as it does not infringe upon the freedom and liberty of someone else. It's not that I am for gay marriage, it's just that I could care less about it. If gays want to get married then more power to them, because it doesn't effect my life one way or the other.

Having said that, I do believe that the gay marriage issue is a state issue and not a federal one. As a matter of fact I don't think government at any level should have anything to do with marriage, except for laws regarding incest and bestiality. I know that is sick, but there are some sick people out there that would try to make the case that they should be able to marry their dog... but I digress. If gay marriage were to be treated like traditional marriage, then gay marriage licenses should be good in any state regardless of whether or not that state allows gay marriage. For example, if two men get married in a state that allows it, and then they move to a state that doesn't they would still be legally married due to reciprocity laws.

If this comes to pass then the pro gun movement has legal precedence and ground to stand on in regards to concealed carry permits. The same law could and should be applied to concealed carry permits, so if I have my concealed carry permit from Virgina, I can carry in any state, regardless of that states gun laws.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
There are federal benefits to marriage.
There are no federal benefits given to those with concealed carry permit.

An institution that provides federal benefits should not be left up to the states. If they want to remove all federal benefits from marriage and truly turn it over the the states, I'm fine with that, but as long as straight people get federal benefits from marriage, gay people should too.

Rights and Benefits of Marriage



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
You can't think of people like guns.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are federal benefits to marriage.
There are no federal benefits given to those with concealed carry permit.

An institution that provides federal benefits should not be left up to the states. If they want to remove all federal benefits from marriage and truly turn it over the the states, I'm fine with that, but as long as straight people get federal benefits from marriage, gay people should too.

Rights and Benefits of Marriage


I agree with you. When I say it is a state issue I mean that I don't believe in a constitutional amendment defining marriage or a federal law making gay marriage legal or illegal. Whether or not it is legal should be left to the individual states to decide and not the fed gov.
edit on 17-5-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Those against gay marriage do not understand love.
Those with guns understand fear.

This saying, I'm strait with a gun lol



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
You can't think of people like guns.


I'm not at all. I'm just saying that state issued permits/licenses should be legally consistent. I got married in New Jersey, but my wife and I live in Virginia. Should we have had to get re-married upon moving to Virginia?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

For example, if two men get married in a state that allows it, and then they move to a state that doesn't they would still be legally married due to reciprocity laws.

If this comes to pass then the pro gun movement has legal precedence and ground to stand on in regards to concealed carry permits. The same law could and should be applied to concealed carry permits, so if I have my concealed carry permit from Virgina, I can carry in any state, regardless of that states gun laws.



I'm sure my lack of understanding is due to being Canadian. I've never thought of guns and marriage having any similarities, other than when a spouse shoots their partner.

I always thought that other than that, marriage and gun laws had nothing to do with each other

Up here, gay marriage is legal, and accepted, and concealed weapons are not.
A difference in our cultures, I guess....

I do believe that laws should be somewhat consistent across the country, it makes for less confusion, not having to look up what is and isn't allowed in the next province/state when travelling or moving.
edit on 17-5-2011 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Whether or not it is legal should be left to the individual states to decide and not the fed gov.


I disagree with this part, though. Marriage carries FEDERAL benefits. If the federal government offers benefits to people who are legally married (which they do), then the states should not be able to pick and choose who, within their state, are eligible to receive these FEDERAL benefits.

Disallowing gay marriage in a particular state is discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment as it is NOT equal treatment under the law.

If the states are left to decide who and who cannot get married, they could say that blacks can't marry in certain states. Therefore black people in that state would not be eligible for the FEDERAL benefits of marriage. But we wouldn't THINK of discriminating against a whole race, but we allow it for a whole sexual preference.

It's one thing for a state to say, no one under the age of 15 can get married. That is applied equally to all people in that state. But it's quite a different thing to say black people (or gay people), regardless of their age, cannot get married. By definition, it's unequal treatment.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


Legally, I think what you say is true.

Even if I have nothing against gay marriage
From my point of view, if a state doesn't allow it, they should stop to be considered legally married even if they did marry in another stat, because it is against the law. Liberty starts where others liberty start and if you decide to move, you don't bring your laws with you.

I feel the same way about immigrants. You can't allow a child to carry a knife at school just because he could do so in his country. If I would move to somewhere else, I would bow down to their laws, not bring mine.

So, even if you come from a state where you we're issued a weapon, if the state you move in doesn't allow the same law, well you can't bring your weapon. If your not happy with it, you shouldn't have moved there in the first place.

This is my opinion



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
From my point of view, if a state doesn't allow it, they should stop to be considered legally married even if they did marry in another stat, because it is against the law.


Would the same hold true for straight marriage, though?
Is it equal treatment?

I would be all for states marriage laws, but gay and straight people should be treated equally.

About the CCP, if black people can carry a concealed weapon in Ohio, but white people can't carry a concealed weapon, IN THE SAME STATE, we begin to see how ridiculous anti-gay-marriage laws really are.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Not sure if this is slightly off-topic, but I recently saw a documentary on medical marijuana in the US.
It showed patients from medical marijuana states like Colorado and California, and they said they are afraid to cross state lines to visit relatives in prohibitionist states.
One of them sometimes takes the chance.
Now wouldn't that also be affected along with firearms and gay marriage?
It sure seems a bit ridiculous to have people married in one state but not another, or to use medication in one state but not another.
What happens to guns and these things if people cross state lines?
Can one hand them in and collect them again upon leaving the state?


edit on 17-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
There shouldnt be "permits" to exercise a right and there shouldnt be any government recognized or sanctioned "marriage."



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit

For example, if two men get married in a state that allows it, and then they move to a state that doesn't they would still be legally married due to reciprocity laws.

If this comes to pass then the pro gun movement has legal precedence and ground to stand on in regards to concealed carry permits. The same law could and should be applied to concealed carry permits, so if I have my concealed carry permit from Virgina, I can carry in any state, regardless of that states gun laws.



I'm sure my lack of understanding is due to being Canadian. I've never thought of guns and marriage having any similarities, other than when a spouse shoots their partner.

I always thought that other than that, marriage and gun laws had nothing to do with each other

Up here, gay marriage is legal, and accepted, and concealed weapons are not.
A difference in our cultures, I guess....

I do believe that laws should be somewhat consistent across the country, it makes for less confusion, not having to look up what is and isn't allowed in the next province/state when travelling or moving.
edit on 17-5-2011 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)


It's not about any similarities between marriage and guns. It's about rights and consistency in regards to licensing. The manner in which guns and marriage are licensed is actually quite similar.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
There shouldnt be "permits" to exercise a right and there shouldnt be any government recognized or sanctioned "marriage."


I agree with you 100%



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The federal laws, particularly the federal tax laws, provide many benefits to people who are legally married. Married people can file joint tax returns which generally gives them double the tax benefits that single people get. Married people can make gifts and bequests to eachother and take advantage of the marital deduction.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Not sure if this is slightly off-topic, but I recently saw a documentary on medical marijuana in the US.
It showed patients from medical marijuana states like Colorado and California, and they said they are afraid to cross state lines to visit relatives in prohibitionist states.
One of them sometimes takes the chance.
Now wouldn't that also be affected along with firearms and gay marriage?
It sure seems a bit ridiculous to have people married in one state but not another, or to use medication in one state but not another.
What happens to guns and these things if people cross state lines?
Can one hand them in and collect them again upon leaving the state?


edit on 17-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


In my opinion, this is another good example of what I'm talking about and it is a great point to bring up.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic




I disagree with this part, though. Marriage carries FEDERAL benefits. If the federal government offers benefits to people who are legally married (which they do), then the states should not be able to pick and choose who, within their state, are eligible to receive these FEDERAL benefits.


You would be correct if there was a federal definition or law that defined what marriage is. There isn't one, so it is left to the states as per the 10th amendment. Article 1, Section 8 specifically defines what the powers of Congress are, and marriage isn't in there.


Disallowing gay marriage in a particular state is discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment as it is NOT equal treatment under the law.


In a state where gay marriage is legal, there is equal protection. In states where it hasn't been deemed legal the 14th amendment doesn't apply because there is no law to be equal under.


If the states are left to decide who and who cannot get married, they could say that blacks can't marry in certain states. Therefore black people in that state would not be eligible for the FEDERAL benefits of marriage. But we wouldn't THINK of discriminating against a whole race, but we allow it for a whole sexual preference.


Some states, primarily in the South, once made inter-racial marriage illegal, but of course that was during a much more ignorant time in American history.


It's one thing for a state to say, no one under the age of 15 can get married. That is applied equally to all people in that state. But it's quite a different thing to say black people (or gay people), regardless of their age, cannot get married. By definition, it's unequal treatment.


I'm not sure why you keep mentioning black people. This thread is about gay marriage.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   


Some states, primarily in the South, once made inter-racial marriage illegal, but of course that was during a much more ignorant time in American history.


Is it really less ignorant? Or is it exactly the same.

I was in my early 20s when all this crap started getting stirred up about gay marriage, prior to that I had no idea that it wasn't legal. Ten years later nobody has given me an actual explanation for its prohibition. I moved to Canada 2 years ago, please don't follow me, I don't like you people. Civil unions should include anyone who is capable of providing offical consent to do so.
edit on 18-5-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2

log in

join