I'd say Vegas is about as lenient as you can find about getting married.  License is required. 

Does anybody else think it's odd that one requires a license in order to exercise what jrd_x says is a fundamental civil right?

A licence is a creation of the left to get more of your money so they can create more govt. so they can get more of your money so they can create more govt. so they can get more money so they.....you get the drift.

Posted by antoncresten on 5/22/2012 9:04:00 PM (view original):
gun licences

Exactly.  I've already the 2nd Amendment(the right to bear arms) is a "right" with restrictions.    If a right has government restrictions, is it right? 

Either way, marriage and gun ownership require one to meet certain guidelines.  SSM fails to meet the marriage guidelines much like your long criminal record would cause you to fail to meet gun ownership guidelines.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Second Amendment rights in the case of "District of Columbia vs. Heller" in 2008.

An interesting part of their ruling was:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Now take that statement and apply it to marriage.  The "right" to marriage is not unlimited.  It does not necessarily mean that anybody can marry anybody else, i.e. same-sex marriage.

Here is the specific Supreme Court ruling.  At the top of page 55, they say:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.   Miller  said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So again with respect to rights (such as marriage), limitations based on historic tradition are OK.

Sounds like this discussion can be

CLOSED.

Weird ****, huh?    Your "rights" have limits.  

Please see something I posted along those lines about 50 pages ago.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 8:28:00 AM (view original):
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Second Amendment rights in the case of "District of Columbia vs. Heller" in 2008.

An interesting part of their ruling was:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Now take that statement and apply it to marriage.  The "right" to marriage is not unlimited.  It does not necessarily mean that anybody can marry anybody else, i.e. same-sex marriage.

Here is the specific Supreme Court ruling.  At the top of page 55, they say:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.   Miller  said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So again with respect to rights (such as marriage), limitations based on historic tradition are OK.

Sounds like this discussion can be

CLOSED.

That's great.  There are requirements to marry. I never said there couldn't be.

Dragging out the dead horse once again, same sex couples had the right to marry in California.  For the state to take that right away from just same sex couples without violating the 14th amendment, there has to be a compelling governmental reason to do so.

There isn't one.

Yet it happened.  And continues to.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Yet it happened.  And continues to.

Hence the lawsuit and the 2 federal court rulings against prop 8.

Yet it continues to happen. 

Sure.  Civil rights movements are incremental.  Prop 8 is the first to be overturned and the rest will fall like very slow dominoes.

And if it isn't overturned?

Posted by toddcommish on 5/23/2012 12:06:00 PM (view original):
And if it isn't overturned?

It's already been overturned twice and the judgement in the appeals court ruling was essentially tailored to Kennedy and his Romer decision.  If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case (if they don't the appeals court ruling stands) it's assumed that Kennedy will be the deciding vote.