Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

There were two questions before the Court, the first asked whether states could ban same sex marriage, the second asked whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

----------------------

The precedent has been set. States have to recognize marriages performed out of state. Concurrently, with that precedent, states will have to recognize Concealed Carry Permits issued out of state. This is a huge win for 2nd Amendment advocates. We just need to run it up the court system with this as the precedent and we are done with these anti-gun nut laws that attempt to deprive us of our 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

Yes, and the precedent is that the meaning of every constitutional provision is subject to the whims of 5 unelected people.

So stop kidding yourself.

 

Good points. On the flip side, can states institutes tons and tons of laws limiting or setting the conditions for marriages thereby making them almost impossible like liberals states do with guns?

 

You're under the impression that the left-wing supporters of gay marriage have any interest in damaging their anti-gun social agenda in the interest of remaining consistent?

 

Somebody might want to brush up on how full faith and credit works.

 

I think you are referring to marbury v madison.

 

Yes, thanks to today's decision...."any day now"...

Texas will make it legal to open-carry bazookas and flame-throwers.

 

Way to miss his point. There are no states where you can legally open carry a bazooka and flamethrower. There are states where you can conceal carry a firearm.

 

This ruling is an amazing precedent that has real implications on Conceal Carry Licenses.

I don't expect Liberals to be consistent, it's not what they do, but the courts will be required to remain consistent or the people of the land can no longer respect their rulings.

 

Your perspective is excellent. I do believe you have a strong point here.

In the long term, this really forwards the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms across the U.S. state by state without being discriminated against because of the anti-gun whims of those that do not honor the U.S. Constitution.

 

Using this logic my library card from CA should also be valid in Nevada

 

A valid point. I'll agree with a liberal that marriage between two consenting adults should be allowed. They love that. However when I say I should be able to protect myself with a gun (concealed or otherwise) they get upset and say that guns kill people so they should either not be allowed at all or strictly controlled by the federal government.

Freedoms are freedoms, you can't play favorites and only pick the ones that match your agenda lol

 

It's not a state issued license.

 

Please, you have no idea.

Hell, I doubt you've even read Marbury anyway.

Perhaps you're under the impression acquiescence requires respect?

 

A hunting and fishing license is...guess that means no more drama on Lake Erie on the Ohio border!

 

Win!

You got that right. They need to respect the licenses of other states.

 

This what must be taken from it, they've argued against the majority influencing the natural rights of individuals. This needs to banged home ruthlessly for everything from guns, taxes, welfare to limited government.

 

everyone already has that right, except ex-felons and people with mental issues, they could benefit from this fight though as a right it a right... period, not a privilege

Concealed Carry Permits are a good example though, I agree, when valid in one should be valid in all..... just common sense and ANYONE should be able to get a license

.

 

How did this set a precedent for that anymore than Loving V Virginia?

 

The precedent presupposes a finding that a concealed carry permit is a fundamental right under the due process clause. There may be a problem there. .

 

Where were you guys complaining about SCOTUS when Citizen's United happened? Or Bush/Gore?

 

that's true too

 

There was nothing noteworthy to complain about in either case. You're welcome.

 

This ruling is in no way relevant carry permits.

 

It absolutely is a fundamental right as decided by the California Courts last year, and should be obvious in the 2nd Amendment after the rulings by the Supreme Court 3 years ago. If a state does not allow open carry, they must allow conceal carry. That was the ruling.

The ruling yesterday on Gay Marriage puts a nail in the coffin of the anti-gun crowd.

This was a big deal.