The REALITY of Marriage Equality

Please remember that I am not opposed to gay marriage.

But as a citizen of Pennsylvania, I am required to have my car inspected at a State licensed facility once per year. It is not legal for me to drive that car in PA if it does not have a current inspection sticker.
Maryland only requires their drivers to have their cars inspected when they purchase them, whether new or used.

A Maryland resident can commute to a job in Pennsylvania every day and drive legally with a car that has not been inspected for YEARS. I can not.

Where are my 14th Amendment rights?

a reply to: butcherguy

What do those things have to do with equal rights? Are you suggesting that YOUR state's laws are somehow supposed to trump other states' laws or something?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

What do those things have to do with equal rights? Are you suggesting that YOUR state's laws are somehow supposed to trump other states' laws or something?

No. A resident of another state has rights that I do not have in my own state when they are in my state. How is that equal rights?
I shouldn't have used the NJ hollowpoint example, my bad.

a reply to: butcherguy

Those aren't rights. They are privileges and requirements. It's not a right that I don't have to inspect my car every few years in Maryland. It's just a rule that Maryland hasn't decided to implement and Pennsylvania has. This is all covered under the 10th Amendment, which enumerates the rights of states to enforce their own laws not covered by the Constitution. Looks like it is working as intended to me. Where is the contradiction?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Those aren't rights. They are privileges and requirements. It's not a right that I don't have to inspect my car every few years in Maryland. It's just a rule that Maryland hasn't decided to implement and Pennsylvania has. This is all covered under the 10th Amendment, which enumerates the rights of states to enforce their own laws not covered by the Constitution. Looks like it is working as intended to me. Where is the contradiction?

I guess you are right.
It still pisses me off that a Maryland driver can do in my state what I legally can not.

a reply to: butcherguy

But these laws apply equally to everyone within the state, do they not? They don't just apply to blacks but not whites, or only to heterosexuals but not homosexuals, right? And you can buy whichever model of car you want, right? No one is telling you which model of car you are allowed to get a inspection sticker on, right?

To be legally married with all the benefits the state provides, a couple must get a license (much like your inspection sticker). Some states have different legal age of consent, some states have different requirements for who can sign off on the license, but it shouldn't matter which person you choose to get the license with, just like it shouldn't matter which model of car you happen to like.

a reply to: butcherguy

Well feel fine in the fact that I can't buy an AR-15 or a 30 round magazine in Maryland and you can in PA.

a reply to: kaylaluv

but it shouldn't matter which person you choose to get the license with

Then you agree that cousins, siblings and parent/children should be allowed to marry. I was hoping someone would finally agree with that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Well feel fine in the fact that I can't buy an AR-15 or a 30 round magazine in Maryland and you can in PA.

Nah, I wish that you could.

a reply to: butcherguy

Well let's try telling a heterosexual guy which heterosexual non-related girl he can marry shall we? If it's not the girl he fell in love with, too bad so sad. Are you all for that?

a reply to: butcherguy

Luckily I live in Stewartstown, PA now and just commute into Maryland for work, so it's all good.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Luckily I live in Stewartstown, PA now and just commute into Maryland for work, so it's all good.

Welcome to PA!
My former sister-in-law used to live there and commuted to Baltimore. Now she lives in Maryland.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: butcherguy

Well let's try telling a heterosexual guy which heterosexual non-related girl he can marry shall we? If it's not the girl he fell in love with, too bad so sad. Are you all for that?

No, as you should be able to see, I am not into telling people which people they are allowed to marry.
I am just glad to see that you are on board too!
I was just surprised that you would agree to relatives marrying, most people don't.

a reply to: butcherguy

To be honest, I still bulk at that 30 round magazine ban. They act like it's really that hard to gain access to a 3D printer and a spring in this day and age... I mean I really don't agree with the AR ban, but the magazine ban is just downright stupid.

a reply to: Lightworth

One's proof is there if one bothers to take even a casual glance at the issue.

The race is continued via hetero activity. Simple. The natural purpose of the sexual organs are obvious.

It is an indulgence, nothing more.

As far as 'equal' goes, there is no such thing as equal in this universe. It doesn't exist.

One furthers the race, one is an indulgence...not equal. period. Now the gay community is facing a larger and larger backlash the more that enforcement is placed on the hetero community. At least two states have already stated they will ignore the SCOTUS ruling-albeit by different means-and more will join the counter movement.

Ironic that this issue could be the 'straw on the camel's back' that starts the end of this union.....

a reply to: butcherguy

Actually I don't care if close relatives marry, as long as they aren't allowed to victimize their children with known birth defects. But that's not what I was referring to in my earlier post, and you know that.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Then we cannot allow two people over the fertility age to get married, as that would simply be an "indulgence". And we can't allow two heterosexual people who can't have children to get married, as that would simply be an "indulgence". And we can't allow two heterosexual people who choose not to have children to get married, as that would simply be an "indulgence".

What about two heterosexuals who got married, had a family, but are done with having children? Void the marriage legally I guess, since it will now be simply an "indulgence".

originally posted by: nwtrucker
It is an indulgence, nothing more.

Even if that's true, so is eating out, having a nice car, a nice stereo system, having protected sex, going on vacation... I could go on forever about all the things we indulge in...

As far as 'equal' goes, there is no such thing as equal in this universe.

There IS, however, EQUAL TREATMENT under the law. That's what marriage equality is.

One furthers the race, one is an indulgence...not equal.

MANY marriages don't "further the race". I've been married for 23 years and there has never been any "race-furthering" here...

At least two states have already stated they will ignore the SCOTUS ruling-albeit by different means-and more will join the counter movement.

They will be forced to comply with the law, just as we all have to.

Ironic that this issue could be the 'straw on the camel's back' that starts the end of this union.....

Or be the issue that finally turns us back into the right direction of FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES! Woo-Hoo!

originally posted by: nwtrucker


At least two states have already stated they will ignore the SCOTUS ruling-albeit by different means-and more will join the counter movement.

Yeah, they tried to do that when the Jim Crow laws were banned too. Didn't work, did it?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

This whole post is absurd.

Its not as I see it. Its as defined. I see the definition and do not attempt to rewrite it to fit my personal viewpoint.

So your dictionary of the 1800's had automobiles defined? Therefore they were unnatural and you shouldn't be driving one. Great logic! To use a dictionary in formulating your reasoning and critique on such important social issues and human relationships is rather stupid. I suppose in your dictionary the Earth is 6000 years old as well.