Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 202

Thread: Gay Marriage and 2A....

  1. #1
    Member BaiHu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In front of pixels.

    Gay Marriage and 2A....

    So the Supremes did this:

    Supreme Court says same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that people have Constitutional right to enter into same-sex marriages.
    More on this story http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...all-50-states/

    Here's what I think:

    1) If my gay marriage is good in MA and I move to TX and now it's forced to be recognized in TX too... Then

    2) If I have a CCW in TX, then it should have to be recognized when I move to NJ.

    Lastly,

    3) the Fed is out of tricks, so now the Supremes bail them out like they just did Congress, by finding another group to nail with the marriage penalty [emoji13]

    We're in bizarro world.

    Any thoughts on how to make this movement work would be appreciated. I know many will find the many reasons I've thought of on how this isn't the same.

    Fire away.
    Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.

  2. #2
    That is a similar argument to what I use when discussing voter ID with progressive liberals. "I am glad that you agree that I should not need an ID or background check to exercise my 2nd amendment rights". Then they make the "I have no argument and I don't like it" face.
    Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".

  3. #3
    Member BaiHu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In front of pixels.
    Nice.
    Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    While the Supreme Court believes Equal Protection applies to all, apparently some in the gay rights movement don't agre:

    "Gay Open Carry Group Kicked out of Gay Pride Pareade"

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ological-harm/

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter CCT125US's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Very interesting times indeed. It still baffles me that as an Ohio resident, what I carry daily would make me a felon in NJ many times over. What I as a civilian can purchase, is unabtainable by my LEO friends in Cali. The patch work of gun laws is ridiculous.
    Taking a break from social media.

  6. #6
    Friend of mine has a blog post up on the topic: Same sex marriage, Tolerance, MYOB, Get Off My Lawn & the Constitution

    As for me:
    1) The Constitution of the United States does not give the Federal Government any role in defining, authorizing, or outlawing marriage between two (or more) consenting adults of any variety that I have been able to find.
    a) It does give Congress the power to regulate Interstate Commerce. While the wedding industry is certainly lucrative, I don't think it can rightly fall under the definition of "Commerce."
    b) It is true that Congress, and SCOTUS, have taken a fairly broad interpretation of "Interstate Commerce". Somehow, even though my bank and my insurance company are forbidden from doing business across state lines, the Interstate Commerce clause justifies the travesty formerly known as ObamaCare, now SCOTUSCare.
    2) The Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    3) The Tenth Amendment says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Personally, FWIW, I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. If it ain't covered, and one must strain at gnats to put it there, it ain't there. Universality of my driver's license can easily be read into the Interstate Commerce clause. And if I'm traveling, the legality of the device with which I choose to exercise my Second Amendment rights across a probably arbitrary line could be as well. (Certainly there have been enough violations of FOPA by the NY/NJ Port Authority over the years to justify a Federal Case...)
    (Although Constitutional Overreach on the subject of marriage has a long, dishonorable history: The two planks on which the Republican Party was founded were 1) Freeing the slaves, and 2) Telling Brigham Young he had to pick one and divorce the rest.)
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    1) The Constitution of the United States does not give the Federal Government any role in defining, authorizing, or outlawing marriage between two (or more) consenting adults of any variety that I have been able to find.
    How about this bit....

    nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    When the States took it upon themselves to make "marriage" a contractual issue, they are (should be) immediately prohibited from limiting which citizens are eligible to join in such a contract and receive the benefits and protections that derive therefrom. That they are citizens of these United States is all that is required for the Equal Protection Clause to apply. Yes.. it really is that simple. To me anyway.

    Now... I would argue... that "marriage" is really a religious institution and what the States proffer is more accurately termed "Civil Union". When I got married, I entered into both by signing a marriage contract which was filed with the State and also making a vow which sanctified my marriage under religious guidelines. The piece that the State has established, regardless of how wrongly I think it's named, is a non-secular contract that must be available to all US Citizens.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

  8. #8
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by BaiHu View Post
    Here's what I think:

    1) If my gay marriage is good in MA and I move to TX and now it's forced to be recognized in TX too... Then

    2) If I have a CCW in TX, then it should have to be recognized when I move to NJ.
    Easy to agree.

    I look forward to traveling to NY and NJ when National Reciprocity is the rule of the land.

    I have some family members up that way that would lose their minds if I showed up wearing my gun. Worth the plane ticket, easily.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

  9. #9
    Member LHS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Behind that cactus
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    How about this bit....



    When the States took it upon themselves to make "marriage" a contractual issue, they are (should be) immediately prohibited from limiting which citizens are eligible to join in such a contract and receive the benefits and protections that derive therefrom. That they are citizens of these United States is all that is required for the Equal Protection Clause to apply. Yes.. it really is that simple. To me anyway.

    Now... I would argue... that "marriage" is really a religious institution and what the States proffer is more accurately termed "Civil Union". When I got married, I entered into both by signing a marriage contract which was filed with the State and also making a vow which sanctified my marriage under religious guidelines. The piece that the State has established, regardless of how wrongly I think it's named, is a non-secular contract that must be available to all US Citizens.
    That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    To me the issue is simple.

    The state should keep out of people's personal business unless said business causes demonstrable harm (which does not include your aesthetic sexual preference). If the state wants to have some specific legal contracts on how couples form, it should be open to any type of consenting adult couple. The religious ceremony is not the state's business.

    The issue is also one of discrimination and rights. Our society has decided that certain personal characteristics cannot be used in a discriminatory fashion (hence the protected classes - race, ethnicity, religion, national origin). Sexual preference is being added to list - and that's fine with me. I do not buy into that you have a right to discriminate in business and employment. You could disagree but tough. The person's rights trump you being the dictator of your business that is open to the public.

    I regard a primary right as the right to life and the implementation of that through the right to self-defense. Thus, the right to carry guns is fundamental and all states should acknowledge that. Pragmatically, this means that all state licenses (if you have a license/permit system) should be valid throughout the USA. In the same vein, I disagree with the property rights of a business to ban carry if they are open to the public as they infringe on a basic right (as with discrimination) and that trumps their property rights.

    Your home is different as it is not open to the public. Bans are only allowed for public places on technical grounds - no gun in the MRI, no tracers on the Hindenburg.

    If the 2nd A. community was smart (haha) they would embrace this decision as one supporting personal liberty in the same vein as the decisions supporting the RKBA. In both, the power of the state to limit personal rights and choices is being constrained.

    The state should keep its hand off your holster, out of your pants, minimize the dip into your wallet and let you eat whatever brownie you want.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •