Like many have already stated, I would just prefer the government not be involved in marriage to begin with I but do have a question. And this is not snark or rhetoric as I am very much ignorant here.

Why would marriage potentially be a full faith and credit problem when clearly there is no issue with handgun licenses varying from state to state? Reciprocity is something those with CHL should be fully aware of and it cannot be assumed.

RED AG 98 said:

---

Like many have already stated, I would just prefer the government not be involved in marriage to begin with I but do have a question. And this is not snark or rhetoric as I am very much ignorant here.

Why would marriage potentially be a full faith and credit problem when clearly there is no issue with handgun licenses varying from state to state? Reciprocity is something those with CHL should be fully aware of and it cannot be assumed.

---

There might just be a wee bit of difference between marriage and familial relationships and whatever hoops you have to jump through to carry a gun. Maybe just a wee bit.

Pathfinder&Outlander said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

---

I'll gladly tell them that their selfish act of depriving children of their mother/father for their own personal gratitude while teaching values that are contrary to the moral order is terrible.

---

What a despicable human you are.

---

A well-reasoned rebuttal. Why don't you expound? How about Ballers attempt at emotional blackmail to win an argument?

How long has gay adoption been accepted in the US? You act like that statement is wildly out of the mainstream.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

---

I'll gladly tell them that their selfish act of depriving children of their mother/father for their own personal gratitude while teaching values that are contrary to the moral order is terrible.

---

You should start that with a disclaimer that you are arrogant enough to think you know what is best for children that you have never met and have no idea how their lives are going.

---

Well you don't have the counterfactual, so you don't know if those kids are better or worse off in a different situation. But outside of that, your hypothetical children have no bearing on the issue at hand. It's just an attempt at emotional blackmail to get people to back down at the risk of being called an ass. Sorry I didn't back down.

And your edit is completely irrelevant and subjective.

Kvetch said:

---

Pathfinder&Outlander said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

---

I'll gladly tell them that their selfish act of depriving children of their mother/father for their own personal gratitude while teaching values that are contrary to the moral order is terrible.

---

What a despicable human you are.

---

A well-reasoned rebuttal. Why don't you expound? How about Ballers attempt at emotional blackmail to win an argument?

How long has gay adoption been accepted in the US? You act like that statement is wildly out of the mainstream.

---

Emotional blackmail? Simply stating that healthy families exist and aren't the freaks that are posted about on here is blackmail.

How fragile.

But still incredibly true.

Perhaps youre triggered bc youre too cowardly
To do real research into the real people thst will be affected by this, and you'd prefer to stay in your bubble that this only effects drab queens walking around with dildos.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

But still incredibly true.

Perhaps youre triggered bc youre too cowardly
To do real research into the real people thst will be affected by this, and you'd prefer to stay in your bubble that this only effects drab queens walking around with dildos.

---

Are you brave enough to admit that, while there might be circumstances where placement with a gay couple is better than the alternative, all other things being equal, it would be better to place an adoptive child with a heterosexual couple?

Simple question.

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

But still incredibly true.

Perhaps youre triggered bc youre too cowardly
To do real research into the real people thst will be affected by this, and you'd prefer to stay in your bubble that this only effects drab queens walking around with dildos.

---

No, that's not really it at all. I wouldn't say I'm the triggered one based on the back and forth.

Anyways, I'm not going to get into further back and forth. I was just responding to your bad attempt to win an argument. You thought you had a trump card, but you don't. Maybe you're the one in the bubble.

twk said:

---

RED AG 98 said:

---

Like many have already stated, I would just prefer the government not be involved in marriage to begin with I but do have a question. And this is not snark or rhetoric as I am very much ignorant here.

Why would marriage potentially be a full faith and credit problem when clearly there is no issue with handgun licenses varying from state to state? Reciprocity is something those with CHL should be fully aware of and it cannot be assumed.

---

There might just be a wee bit of difference between marriage and familial relationships and whatever hoops you have to jump through to carry a gun. Maybe just a wee bit.

---

Thanks for the response. I'm not familiar with the CHL requirements per state, but could not hypothetically a state make a CHL little more than a permit requiring a fee and associated federal background stuff? I would also argue that in Texas obtaining a CHL is easier than a driver's license in terms of time and effor (not less rigourous; less effort). Again, as I stated I am ignorant and just trying to understand what I as a complete novice see as a lack of consistency. Thanks.

Until we empty all the orphanages, who the **** cares as long as the kid has a family?

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

But still incredibly true.

Perhaps youre triggered bc youre too cowardly
To do real research into the real people thst will be affected by this, and you'd prefer to stay in your bubble that this only effects drab queens walking around with dildos.

---

No, that's not really it at all. I wouldn't say I'm the triggered one based on the back and forth.

Anyways, I'm not going to get into further back and forth. I was just responding to your bad attempt to win an argument. You thought you had a trump card, but you don't. Maybe you're the one in the bubble.

---

So you punt and dodge while maintaining your bubble.

Typical.

Go look at pictures of weirdos at pride to make yourself feel morally superior.

RED AG 98 said:

---

twk said:

---

RED AG 98 said:

---

Like many have already stated, I would just prefer the government not be involved in marriage to begin with I but do have a question. And this is not snark or rhetoric as I am very much ignorant here.

Why would marriage potentially be a full faith and credit problem when clearly there is no issue with handgun licenses varying from state to state? Reciprocity is something those with CHL should be fully aware of and it cannot be assumed.

---

There might just be a wee bit of difference between marriage and familial relationships and whatever hoops you have to jump through to carry a gun. Maybe just a wee bit.

---

Thanks for the response. I'm not familiar with the CHL requirements per state, but could not hypothetically a state make a CHL little more than a permit requiring a fee and associated federal background stuff? I would also argue that in Texas obtaining a CHL is easier than a driver's license in terms of time and effor (not less rigourous; less effort). Again, as I stated I am ignorant and just trying to understand what I as a complete novice see as a lack of consistency. Thanks.

---

Well, gun ownership and marriage are both constitutional rights under current law. Neither can be denied without due process, but states having different administrative hoops isn't, in and of itself, depriving you of a right. Now, you could reach a point where the regulations do that, but not granting reciprocity on a license wouldn't be considered deprivation of the right to carry, standing alone.

RED AG 98 said:

---

twk said:

---

RED AG 98 said:

---

Like many have already stated, I would just prefer the government not be involved in marriage to begin with I but do have a question. And this is not snark or rhetoric as I am very much ignorant here.

Why would marriage potentially be a full faith and credit problem when clearly there is no issue with handgun licenses varying from state to state? Reciprocity is something those with CHL should be fully aware of and it cannot be assumed.

---

There might just be a wee bit of difference between marriage and familial relationships and whatever hoops you have to jump through to carry a gun. Maybe just a wee bit.

---

Thanks for the response. I'm not familiar with the CHL requirements per state, but could not hypothetically a state make a CHL little more than a permit requiring a fee and associated federal background stuff? I would also argue that in Texas obtaining a CHL is easier than a driver's license in terms of time and effor (not less rigourous; less effort). Again, as I stated I am ignorant and just trying to understand what I as a complete novice see as a lack of consistency. Thanks.

---

There is little to no full faith and credit afforded to gun ownership in general nor concealed carry specifically among states.

Don't know why you ever thought there was.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

You should start that with a disclaimer that you are arrogant enough to think you know what is best for children that you have never met and have no idea how their lives are going.

"Hey Joe and Jason, I know your three kids are really happy and make straight A's, are super active in sports, are popular and good kids to everyone around them, but youre just awful parents and incredibly selfish.

Sincerely,

Random Texags dude who just knows better than you. Totally nor a narcissist.

---

Now do that with married biological parents. Which kids are really winning?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Until we empty all the orphanages, who the **** cares as long as the kid has a family?

---

The demand to adopt outweighs the supply of children. That's not the issue.

twk said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

But still incredibly true.

Perhaps youre triggered bc youre too cowardly
To do real research into the real people thst will be affected by this, and you'd prefer to stay in your bubble that this only effects drab queens walking around with dildos.

---

Are you brave enough to admit that, while there might be circumstances where placement with a gay couple is better than the alternative, all other things being equal, it would be better to place an adoptive child with a heterosexual couple?

Simple question.

---

In some cases sure, in other cases no.

I can think of five gay families I know of personally that have incredibly good kids. I can't imagine straight parents raising them any better but obviously there are incredible straight parents as well.

Your question is just too broad a d sort of irrelevant. Its not a competition.

Because I don't know the law at all and was legit just asking a question regarding the nature of this consistency of licensing across state lines.

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

---

I'll gladly tell them that their selfish act of depriving children of their mother/father for their own personal gratitude while teaching values that are contrary to the moral order is terrible.

---

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of adoption.

Obergafel was a crap decision but it will be a looong time before it's overturned if ever. Roe was overturned due to a very well organized, passionate, and well funded pro life campaign over an almost 50 year period. There just isn't an organization like that nor any political will to overturn Obergafel right now.

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

---

LOL. What? Is that you, Sotomayor?

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

twk said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

But still incredibly true.

Perhaps youre triggered bc youre too cowardly
To do real research into the real people thst will be affected by this, and you'd prefer to stay in your bubble that this only effects drab queens walking around with dildos.

---

Are you brave enough to admit that, while there might be circumstances where placement with a gay couple is better than the alternative, all other things being equal, it would be better to place an adoptive child with a heterosexual couple?

Simple question.

---

In some cases sure, in other cases no.

I can think of five gay families I know of personally that have incredibly good kids. I can't imagine straight parents raising them any better but obviously there are incredible straight parents as well.

Your question is just too broad a d sort of irrelevant. Its not a competition.

---

It's a hypothetical based on a classification, and is intended to be broad. It goes to the point of whether or not we have to close our eyes and pretend that gay marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage, just because some judges say it is.

Sure in real life, all other things are never equal. However, you are smart enough to do hypotheticals. Do this one.

All other things being equal (good people, steady jobs, every positive variable you can imagine), if the choice for placing an adoptive child is between these otherwise equal couples, one gay and one heterosexual, why isn't it better to place the child with the heterosexual couple?

aggiehawg said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

---

LOL. What? Is that you, Sotomayor?

---

I didn't say it was the right decision, but isn't that when there was the first split between different levels of scrutiny based on the whether the government has a compelling interest vs. a "fundamental" right?

tysker said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

---

I'll gladly tell them that their selfish act of depriving children of their mother/father for their own personal gratitude while teaching values that are contrary to the moral order is terrible.

---

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of adoption.

---

I mean, we have plenty of restrictions on adoption. It's not like you walk into the baby store and grab the one you want.

It's not exactly a radical view that kids should be adopted into a 2-parent traditional family. That's been the standard until about the last 5 minutes.

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

---

Ah yes, the amazing exec order to force all Japanese to leave their homes because they look different and may be bad guys. You must love red flag laws.

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

---

Ah yes, the amazing exec order to force all Japanese to leave their homes because they look different and may be bad guys. You must love red flag laws.

---

Ah yes, you missed the point. In the last 80 years, the law has never been as simple as "If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event."

_mpaul said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

---

LOL. What? Is that you, Sotomayor?

---

I didn't say it was the right decision, but isn't that when there was the first split between different levels of scrutiny based on the whether the government has a compelling interest vs. a "fundamental" right?

---

Yes and no. Strict scrutiny, like many other judicial concepts, evolved over time.

Point being, Korematsu, even if not specifically overruled by name is bad law and SCOTUS has said that to b*** slap a Sotomayor dissent based upon it.

Gay marriage should be at the same place abortion was just placed, The state level. ( same as Marijuana) Gun rights can not be there because the 2nd amendment says it can't be.

All of these are very hard for liberals to understand

twk said:

---

RED AG 98 said:

---

twk said:

---

RED AG 98 said:

---

Like many have already stated, I would just prefer the government not be involved in marriage to begin with I but do have a question. And this is not snark or rhetoric as I am very much ignorant here.

Why would marriage potentially be a full faith and credit problem when clearly there is no issue with handgun licenses varying from state to state? Reciprocity is something those with CHL should be fully aware of and it cannot be assumed.

---

There might just be a wee bit of difference between marriage and familial relationships and whatever hoops you have to jump through to carry a gun. Maybe just a wee bit.

---

Thanks for the response. I'm not familiar with the CHL requirements per state, but could not hypothetically a state make a CHL little more than a permit requiring a fee and associated federal background stuff? I would also argue that in Texas obtaining a CHL is easier than a driver's license in terms of time and effor (not less rigourous; less effort). Again, as I stated I am ignorant and just trying to understand what I as a complete novice see as a lack of consistency. Thanks.

---

Well, gun ownership and marriage are both constitutional rights under current law. Neither can be denied without due process, but states having different administrative hoops isn't, in and of itself, depriving you of a right. Now, you could reach a point where the regulations do that, but not granting reciprocity on a license wouldn't be considered deprivation of the right to carry, standing alone.

---

Thanks again for the sincere reply. For CHL it is not just administrative differences in the sense of say additional paperwork or taking a class or similar. There are fundamental differences by state in who is actually eligible to purchase or carry (e.g. in some states felons rights can be restored.).

And sorry for the derail on CHL that is not my intent at all. Perhaps CHL isn't even a good example. What I am most interested in understanding is when or where the full faith and credit might apply because on the surface it seemed there were some obvious contradictions. I've read a few sources now (probably where I should have started) and have at least some rudimentary understand. Thanks.

Kvetch said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

atmtws said:

---

We deserve the right to be just as miserable as the heteros.

---

This conservative agrees. As a person that values freedom, I will always oppose legislated morality.

---

All legislation is a reflection of morality. Otherwise, there's no basis for laws. HTH.

---

The basis for laws in not rooted in morality, it's rooted in communal existence and survival.

tysker said:

---

Why so people care so much about gay marriage? Seems like a foundation for more families which should be celebrated

---

Unfortunately, it's can't be just that. The freaks and pedos run the lgbtqiabcdefg show and we know what has happened. Bake the cake, give hormone blockers to kids, the state taking kids away from parents, teachers changing the names/gender of kids, the destruction of actual education of reading-writing-math, etc. That decision literally opened the Pandora's Box.

Charles Coghlan said:

---

With ROE overturned the right has some momentum we get this country back.

---

Amazing how there are still some people delusional enough to think this strategy would end well. Simply mind-blowing.

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event.

---

That, without more, would require undoing the whole notion of rational basis review and strict scrutiny dating back to Korematsu.

---

Ah yes, the amazing exec order to force all Japanese to leave their homes because they look different and may be bad guys. You must love red flag laws.

---

Ah yes, you missed the point. In the last 80 years, the law has never been as simple as "If the government must be involved then people should have equal access to the event."

---

Except that your point is that because someone is different than you, they shouldn't be allowed to wed under the law.