First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

The Supreme Court used section one of the fourteenth amendment to justify their ruling for gay marriage, it reads like this;

quote:

---

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.

---

Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, doesn't this ruling now mean that ALL states must recognize concealed carry permission, no matter what state issued the permit?http://bearingarms.com/...onwide-concealed-carry-reciprocityWhat do gun controllers think about this? Is it wrong? Should something be done about it? Was the gay marriage thing not such a good idea after all?

As a gun owner I don't see anyway the ruling could be construed to mean that. In fact gun ownership and possession really need to be controlled. There is nothing in the recent ruling that says staes cannot still regulate marriage, only that any regulation must apply equally to all citizens.

Regulate how? It's either legal or its not.

Nonsense.States can require medical checks, waiting periods, licensing fees, in fact any rules they feel are in the public interest; but must apply the laws equally regardless of race, creed, beliefs, gender, economic status, education or other factors.Gun ownership or possession can and should also be regulated similarly.

No. Because the ruling was about marriage, not guns. Your OP is stunning in its ridiculousness. There was nothing in the court case and nothing in the ruling about the second amendment. Most people were able to figure that out, cuz, it was about marriage.

Like the fact you need a license to get married.Maybe you should stop while you are behind.

The real first side effect is that some conservative Christians have panicked, and are making all sorts of absurd arguments.The OP of this thread is an example.Everyone else is greatly entertained.

This is a very odd question. The Supreme Court didn't make the Fourteenth Amendment, on the spur of the moment, on Friday, ad hoc, in order to justify gay marriage. It's been in the Constitution since 1868. And its relevance to gun law is, obviously, exactly the same as it was on Thursday. It doesn't become more or less relevant to guns just because someone happened to mention it recently in another case you happened to take an interest in.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Following the spirit of the Constitution is usually a good idea. Maybe some day the Supreme Court will even make a sane interpretation of the Second Amendment.

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.

The Supreme Court ruling seems to have emboldened campaigners for gay marriage here in Europe. The European Commission vice-President, Franz Timmermans, gave a speech the other day in which he said the Commission should try to get all EU member states to accept same-sex marriage.Now, the commission doesn't actually have the power to do this, since marriage law is explicitly preserved for national governments rather than the EU, but his creative approach is to push it as a matter of freedom of movement. If a gay couple get married in France, and then move to Italy, their marriage would not be recognised. If they have a child, then only one of them would be recognised as a guardian under Italian law. Timmermans argues that this would effectively limit their freedom of movement, which is a legally guaranteed right.Now I'm not sure this would stand up in court, but based on the timing, I can't help but feel he's been inspired by the American example.

As I understand it, the argument goes that if State Y has to recognize State X's marriage license, because of section 1 of the 14th amendment, then that same precedent also applies to State X's conceal carry licenses and State Y has to recognize it as well.So for example, my state - Illinois, only recognizes CCL's that they issue themselves and they don't recognize them from other states.If the 14th means that the state of Illinois must recognize other state's marriage licenses, then the same argument could apply to other state's Conceal Carry Licenses and then Illinois would have to recognize those too.

That may be the argument they try to use but it is not what the ruling says. The ruling is based on the 14^th. Amendment which deals with citizenship rights and equal protection under the law.Now if one State licensed only whites to carry guns then this ruling and the 14^th. Amendment might have an effect but I know of no State that only licenses whites or males to carry guns.As long as a State issues licenses to drive or get married or own a gun or carry a gun and treats men and women, white and black, Latino and Asian or straight and gay the same then this ruling would have no effect.Personally I would prefer a National Right to carry firearms but make concealed carry illegal.

Well sure, not this ruling, but the precedent, as I said.A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right. Then they got into how being a fundamental right meant these things.One of those things was that the justifications for refusing to recognize marriages from other states was undermined by the states being required by the Constitution to issue those licenses in their state.Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs.Therefore, if they have to issue this license in this state then that should also undermine their justifications for refusing to recognize licenses from other states.That's one of the precedents that seems to have been set by this ruling. But I could be wrong.

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.