Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First side effect of the gay marriage ruling
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 98 (761255)
06-29-2015 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by marc9000
06-29-2015 9:15 PM


Yes, he looks like the gay one!
To me he looks like a constitutional scholar at a right-wing think-tank.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 98 (761256)
06-29-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2015 5:32 PM


So for the same argument to apply to (for example) concealed-carry licenses, you would first need (for example) a ruling that any state must issue a concealed-carry license to anyone who wants one
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2015 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2015 9:58 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 98 (761257)
06-29-2015 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by marc9000
06-29-2015 9:17 PM


Re: not from the far left but from a life long conservative.
marc9k writes:
Yes, you're a gun owner who loves gun control, a Christian who hates Christians, it figures you'd claim conservatism too. You're a good kind of phony, most everyone sees right through you.
And so you post yet more falsehoods.
I don't love gun control but also understand reality. I am in favor of reasonable regulation.
I am a Christian but not a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and I do not hate Christians, even the members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and the bigots. I do pity them and also fear them.
I don't claim to be a Conservative; I am a Conservative and have been since Ike's second run for President. I even helped found and was the first Adult leader for a TAR group back when Nixon ran for his second term. Like Senator Goldwater though I lost all respect for the Republican Party when the Christian Right gained influence and when the country elected the joke called Reagan.
And as I said, I would be happy to teach you a little about Conservatism and US Conservatives.
The point of the topic though is that for the first time in history the US has finally recognized that Gays have basic human rights and that that has nothing to do with guns.
Edited by jar, : applin spallin
Edited by jar, : more appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 9:17 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 98 (761258)
06-29-2015 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
06-29-2015 9:32 PM


Well of course a state legislature could vote to recognize out-of-state permits, they just couldn't be compelled to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 06-29-2015 9:32 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(5)
Message 35 of 98 (761259)
06-29-2015 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by marc9000
06-29-2015 9:17 PM


Re: not from the far left but from a life long conservative.
marc9000 writes:
Yes, you're a gun owner who loves gun control, a Christian who hates Christians, it figures you'd claim conservatism too. You're a good kind of phony, most everyone sees right through you.
I see jar as similar to Socrates, and his posts as often one of Plato's dialogues. Do you know what appears to be your role?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 9:17 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 98 (761273)
06-30-2015 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
06-29-2015 4:43 PM


I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry".
Your citation doesn't address that.
Really? Is that really the argument you want to go with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2015 4:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 98 (761274)
06-30-2015 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2015 5:32 PM


So for the same argument to apply to (for example) concealed-carry licenses, you would first need (for example) a ruling that any state must issue a concealed-carry license to anyone who wants one.
What about the Moore v Madigan case that I linked to in Message 20, is that at all relevant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2015 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2015 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 98 (761348)
06-30-2015 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 10:03 AM


Not so much. Illinois requires gun training before it issues a license. Apparently they're allowed to do that: it's not hard to argue that the state has a legitimate interest in doing so. So they can't be obligated to honor licenses from other states that don't require training; just as a state which doesn't allow first cousins to marry doesn't have to recognize such marriages. Obergefell is different: because all states have to allow gay marriage, there couldn't possibly be a rationale for not recognizing gay marriages contracted out of state except sheer cussedness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 4:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 98 (761354)
06-30-2015 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 10:01 AM


If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 10:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 98 (761360)
06-30-2015 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
06-30-2015 4:21 PM


If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ?
You didn't show an obvious fallacy.
You claimed that because the DC v Heller case didn't explicitly state "concealed" when it said that people have the right to carry arms, then that means that they were not talking about concealed carry.
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant.
It'd be like you arguing that we don't have free speech online because the first amendment doesn't mention the internet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 4:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-30-2015 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 41 of 98 (761363)
06-30-2015 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2015 3:57 PM


There was a part in the opinion that I didn't really notice much before (bold added for emphasis):
quote:
there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
I was under the impression that they were saying that there was no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage at all.
If they're only saying that there's no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage on the ground of its same-sex character, well, that's different. And that pretty much convinces me that the argument I was making is wrong.
Thanks for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2015 3:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 98 (761364)
06-30-2015 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 4:44 PM


quote:
You didn't show an obvious fallacy.
Oh, but I did.
quote:
You claimed that because the DC v Heller case didn't explicitly state "concealed" when it said that people have the right to carry arms, then that means that they were not talking about concealed carry.
It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry. Unfortunately for you that is all I need. So long as a state can follow the ruling without permitting concealed carry for all, the ruling does not establish concealed carry as a fundamental right.
quote:
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant.
In other words my point was entirely correct and proved you wrong.
And you just try to declare it irrelevant. Are you turning into Faith ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 7:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 98 (761367)
06-30-2015 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 4:44 PM


They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 98 (761370)
06-30-2015 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
06-30-2015 5:10 PM


It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry.
What do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 5:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2015 1:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 98 (761382)
07-01-2015 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 7:05 PM


To put it in your words:
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 7:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 9:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024