First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

But Marc9000 found this question and logic on a web site! The logic must be inescapably correct, right?The Supreme Court has just held that the fourteeth amendment requires every state to adopt the rule that the most permissive state adopts.Typical nine grand BS.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You understand the ruling exactly as poorly as does Marc9000.States were already routinely accepting each others marriage licenses. They were discriminating by rejecting the gay marriage certificates for no good reason that could be justified under the constitution.

So apparently you've learned that the ruling falls well short of what you want. I wonder if you've simply fallen for some more empty rhetoric on yet another wing-nut web site. Do you really think there is a nation wide 'right to work' law on the horizon?Seriously, marc9000, you should have been able to sort this one out on your own.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Or maybe you just need to live in a red state where the government officials are pissed off about gay marriage and are already inclined to let everybody carry guns. I can easily see state legislators in my state insisting that there is a right to concealed carry and that they ought to recognize every other states' permits at least as long as NC permits are recognized.

If you read the case closely you'll see that Illinois did not allow carrying guns at all in most places outside of the home. That is what was considered unconstitutional. Illinois fixed this by creating a scheme for concealed carry where such scheme involves such regulating within the state. There is no way to read this case as supporting a unfettered right to concealed carry.Why are you insisting that people read these cases for you? It as if you feel justified in going along with silly interpretations of the cases unless someone else points out the error. I'm sure my wording here is overly harsh, but you are not one of the posters from whom I expect such behavior.

Your statement is simply an assertion. If it is a correct statement of fact and law, then you win. However your statement does not appear to be a correct statement of the current law. States currently regulate concealed carry within their own borders.If you have a case that you have a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon perhaps you should make that argument. If instead you are playing some kind of silly semantic game, perhaps that should end at some point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except that Cat Sci has already acknowledge his error in making this argument. And as has been pointed out, in order to make the argument he wants based on the actually holding, which is that states are obligated to recognize gay marriages given that they recognize all other marriages, a ruling that concealed carry is a fundamental right is needed to close the loop.

In that case, it seems that you don't have an argument that any of us need care about. Your argument fails because the right to bear arms does not include an unfettered right to carry a concealed weapon.

Here is what Cat Sci actually said in message 14: It turns out that the first statement is wrong. Even if we accept the error about citing wrong court, the court ruled only that Illinois had to allow some version of carry outside of the home. Illinois ultimately went with concealed carry.The easiest "fix" for this bad reasoning is a court case that requires what Cat Sci claimed this one says, namely that it is unconstitutional not to issue concealed carry permits. That also happens to be what PaulK has said is lacking.Even if that is found, that would leave some gaps in the reasoning. But Cat Sci has already acknowledged most of that problem.

I don't ask that you do anything. But I didn't respond to empty air. I responded to your message. Why did you write your message?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My point was that PaulK's initial response was justified by Cat Sci's original post and that your posting left out portions of what actually occurred.Of course it seems that nobody in this thread takes criticism very well.

Your posts left open an issue about what was said, and for that reason I thought it useful to direct you to message 14. It seemed to me that what you had left out of your quotes was fairly germane to our differences of opinion so I provided something for you to consider.What should you do with that information? You don't have to do anything. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.