It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are federal benefits to marriage.
There are no federal benefits given to those with concealed carry permit.
An institution that provides federal benefits should not be left up to the states. If they want to remove all federal benefits from marriage and truly turn it over the the states, I'm fine with that, but as long as straight people get federal benefits from marriage, gay people should too.
Rights and Benefits of Marriage
Originally posted by User8911
You can't think of people like guns.
For example, if two men get married in a state that allows it, and then they move to a state that doesn't they would still be legally married due to reciprocity laws.
If this comes to pass then the pro gun movement has legal precedence and ground to stand on in regards to concealed carry permits. The same law could and should be applied to concealed carry permits, so if I have my concealed carry permit from Virgina, I can carry in any state, regardless of that states gun laws.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Whether or not it is legal should be left to the individual states to decide and not the fed gov.
Originally posted by User8911
From my point of view, if a state doesn't allow it, they should stop to be considered legally married even if they did marry in another stat, because it is against the law.
Originally posted by snowspirit
For example, if two men get married in a state that allows it, and then they move to a state that doesn't they would still be legally married due to reciprocity laws.
If this comes to pass then the pro gun movement has legal precedence and ground to stand on in regards to concealed carry permits. The same law could and should be applied to concealed carry permits, so if I have my concealed carry permit from Virgina, I can carry in any state, regardless of that states gun laws.
I'm sure my lack of understanding is due to being Canadian. I've never thought of guns and marriage having any similarities, other than when a spouse shoots their partner.
I always thought that other than that, marriage and gun laws had nothing to do with each other
Up here, gay marriage is legal, and accepted, and concealed weapons are not.
A difference in our cultures, I guess....
I do believe that laws should be somewhat consistent across the country, it makes for less confusion, not having to look up what is and isn't allowed in the next province/state when travelling or moving.edit on 17-5-2011 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
There shouldnt be "permits" to exercise a right and there shouldnt be any government recognized or sanctioned "marriage."
Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
Not sure if this is slightly off-topic, but I recently saw a documentary on medical marijuana in the US.
It showed patients from medical marijuana states like Colorado and California, and they said they are afraid to cross state lines to visit relatives in prohibitionist states.
One of them sometimes takes the chance.
Now wouldn't that also be affected along with firearms and gay marriage?
It sure seems a bit ridiculous to have people married in one state but not another, or to use medication in one state but not another.
What happens to guns and these things if people cross state lines?
Can one hand them in and collect them again upon leaving the state?
edit on 17-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I disagree with this part, though. Marriage carries FEDERAL benefits. If the federal government offers benefits to people who are legally married (which they do), then the states should not be able to pick and choose who, within their state, are eligible to receive these FEDERAL benefits.
Disallowing gay marriage in a particular state is discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment as it is NOT equal treatment under the law.
If the states are left to decide who and who cannot get married, they could say that blacks can't marry in certain states. Therefore black people in that state would not be eligible for the FEDERAL benefits of marriage. But we wouldn't THINK of discriminating against a whole race, but we allow it for a whole sexual preference.
It's one thing for a state to say, no one under the age of 15 can get married. That is applied equally to all people in that state. But it's quite a different thing to say black people (or gay people), regardless of their age, cannot get married. By definition, it's unequal treatment.
Some states, primarily in the South, once made inter-racial marriage illegal, but of course that was during a much more ignorant time in American history.