Posted on 07/20/2004 1:11:48 PM PDT by pabianice
Thanks for the reply.
"If Scalia's dissentiing opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them."
If that happens, and the courts back up that argument, then won't gun/carry permits fall under the same line of reasoning? I don't see how they couldn't.
So you understand my confusion?
Please don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate of same-sex marriage.
Ultimately it comes down to what the court will do. That's hard to predict sometimes. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the USSC to decide that a gun permit in one jurisdiction has authority in another jurisdiction, based on FF&C concerns.
Custom and history goes against that idea. On the other hand, custom and history supports that a couple married in one state is considered married by all.
Also note that we dodged a bullet with the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s. That change would say, esentially, that the state can't stop a woman from doing what a man can do, and the state can't stop a man from doing what a woman can do.
A woman can marry a man - if the ERA was in place it would be a sound legal basis for allowing a man to do what a woman can do, in this case, marry a man. Same goes for allowing women to do what any man can do - marry a woman.
Whew! That was close!
Nope. It's fairly clear what will happen, and it's fairly clear that that ruling won't impact gun permit laws.
So what is going to happen?
I suspect that a couple married in a same-sex friendly state will move to a same-sex unfriendly state and begin to say, for legal purposes, that they are married.
The new state will tell them no they aren't, based on their own law and policy as protected under the DoMA.
The married couple will sue. This will all be shopped around to a state with a receptive court system and federal circuit. It will go all the way to the USSC who will decide, probnably in a close decision, that the DoMA is unconstitutional in that it serves no important state purpose to deny the recognition to a married couple based on their same-sex status, primarily out of a combination of equal protection grounds and full faith and credit issues.
Unless a constitutional amendment takes the issue away.
In the case of a gun permits across jurisdictions, there wouldn't be the same (or even a similar) equal protection and full faith & credit issue. There would be a 1st amendment issue I suppose but that has all been settled from tradition & custom over the decades.
As far as tradition and custom goes, some might suggest that there is no tradition or custom for same sex marriage. That's true, but there is a tradition and custom for marriage - and that's what's operative here. Same-Sex couples would have a status indistinguishable from different-sex marrieds. The custom of 'marriage' is determinative in this case.
I wouldn't charge him, but the law sucks.
I wouldn't bet on it. NJ is FUBAR when it comes to firearms. Stuff that's sold in the local Walmart in WV will get you jail time if they catch you with it in NJ (hollow point ammo).
There's two issues here btw. Not only did he have a firearm in NJ without having a permit to possess but carrying requires another permit which is almost impossible to get in NJ unless you're connected very high up and get the appropriate "reassurances" passed to a judge. A few years ago, an employee of the National Guard whose work required him to carry keys to the armory, could not get a concealed carry permit. The man was carrying around the means for any bad guy to gain access to all sorts of weaponry and he wasn't allowed to defend himself. That shows you how f**ked NJ is.
I think the ex-cop is screwed.
That pisses me off.
Homosexual marriage is all about getting company-paid health benefits for an employee's homosexual "spouse," nothing more.
This whole issue is a consequence of medical insurance being provided by employers.
Thank you FDR.
Medical insurance should be like car insurance... if you want it, you buy it out of your pocket.
I hope it's mighty toasty where Franklin Delano is right now.
No argument from me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some states already allow marriages which some other states will not recognize, period. While I would doubt that a 40-year-old man who legally married a 14-year-old girl would be prosecuted for statutory rape if he moved to a state that didn't recognize the marriage, that doesn't mean the state would accept the marriage.
Yep, that would be true.
That being said, I don't think the USSC would see it that way since it has already laid the groundwork to consider sexual orientation a sphere for it to work its Equap Protection analysis.
That is, it will not find a compelling state interest that would validate, in its judgment, discriminating against homosexuals in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.