Gay Marriage and 2A....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There are unintended consequences. I heard on the radio that companies have paid for the benefits for domestic partners in states without gay marriage. Now, some of time will drop this and say that to get partner benefits you must be married. This will force some couples to get married. Having done that a couple of times, I welcome more folks to experience the joys of marriage.

As far as being hammered by leftist PC - what else is new? There is a McCarthyist reign of terror on college campuses. Jerry Steinfield, Chris Rock and Larry the Cable guy said they won't appear on campuses as they get hammered for their humor. Jerry was scolded by a 20 year old for being some kind of racist, sexist whatever.

Bill Maher (a gun hater but funny) said that if a Jew, Black and Redneck all say you have a stick up your butt - you have a stick up your butt.

Some folks want to get rid of tenure - like Scott Walker. The defense is that we academics need academic freedom. Conservatives put that down but an interesting article pointed out that no tenure would impact conservatives more. Now, I'm not conservative but outspoken on the 2nd. In the recent past, I made that case to the college Pres. and a relevant department chair. I am sure if one could fire me at will - the Pres. would have greased the skids under me.

There is a large discussion now of how PC speech codes, microaggressions and trigger warnings are terrorizing what can be taught and discussed - so I see the worry.

Just talking to my wife who asked what I was discussing. It's interesting on two personal liberty issues.

For the 2nd Amend. cases - the 4 conservative were for it. The four liberals hated the idea. For gay marriage, the reverse. In both cases, Kennedy swung for the personal liberty. I read a scholarly book on scoping up SCOTUS decisions. The major variance was the justices' base politics. That predicted most decisions and then they looked for precedents. A few justices thought about the issues in the abstract or thought about legacy. Kennedy was suggested as that type.

[LostDuke]

To me the issue is simple.

The state should keep out of people's personal business unless said business causes demonstrable harm ....

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.

Thank you, very well put. I am happy about the decision, I think people should do what they want as long as they don't harm others. Denying gays the benefits and the rights that come with a legal marriage cannot be justified on religious ground, and luckily our Consitution has built a solid wall to prevent that. No such luck in many other advanced countries, and they are worse off for it.

More than expunging on my personal view I would like to reflect on the fact that all Republican candidates oppose the ruling on gay marriage. It seems to me that,, there goes the under 30 vote and there goes the election. It's over before it started, there is a massive hiatus between young people, who are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage.

I don't see a big link between this issue and gun rights, but I also know where I am writing, so fine let's say there is. I find both Kennedy's and Robert's comments very poignant, each powerful and well stated, as they should be.

Kennedy " “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

Roberts: " “The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” he wrote. “Just who do we think we are?”

To Roberts I would reply: "Sir, we are Americans, a people who has always looked forward rather than backwards, our weakness is that as a result we forget history, our strenght is that we dare go where others don't even think it's possible, and we make it work. So, with all due respect, f$% the Bushmen and the Hans as well Sir."

[ford.304]

To Roberts I would reply: "Sir, we are Americans, a people who has always looked forward rather than backwards, our weakness is that as a result we forget history, our strenght is that we dare go where others don't even think it's possible, and we make it work. So, with all due respect, f$% the Bushmen and the Hans as well Sir."

It's a sign of the truly backward political times we live in, that a measure which has 60% approval nationwide (and trending massively upwards), and probably another 20% in favor of some sort of civil union, can't be solved through the political process instead of the courts. The courts should be the last resort on massive social changes like this.

[Kingsfield]

...

Roberts: " “The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” he wrote. “Just who do we think we are?”

To Roberts I would reply: "Sir, we are Americans, a people who has always looked forward rather than backwards, our weakness is that as a result we forget history, our strenght is that we dare go where others don't even think it's possible, and we make it work. So, with all due respect, f$% the Bushmen and the Hans as well Sir."

This comment is curious.

Whom, does one suppose, is the word "we" intended to reference (i.e., what group of persons, and acting in what capacity) in the quoted sentence in the Roberts dissent? And whom is the word "we" intended to reference in the following forum member comment?

[Sensei]

To Roberts I would reply: "Sir, we are Americans, a people who has always looked forward rather than backwards, our weakness is that as a result we forget history, our strenght is that we dare go where others don't even think it's possible, and we make it work. So, with all due respect, f$% the Bushmen and the Hans as well Sir."

We must be living in different countries. I see an American culture bankrupting itself economically, ethically, and educationally. Close to a third of our nation sees itself as racist and chooses to fixate on the symbols of the past. The current debate over the Confederate Flag being a prime example. I live in the rural South and can go days without seeing one. Why is the on the national agenda?

Our nation's experiment with public schools has been a disaster with foreign students outclassing our HS graduates in all metrics that count. Never mind that we spend more per capita than most developed counties on healthcare and education, yet seem to have some of the fattest citizens of any developed country.

Our national debt is $12.5T with another $5.5T of intergovernmental holdings with no relief in sight. We've spent over $15T on the War on Poverty only to see a permanent class of dependency emerge and poverty rates stagnant at 15% for 40+ years. The assault on families continues with new marriages at an all time low and single parents at an all time high. Don't get me started on our leadership on the world stage as the current last 2 administrations were disasters. So, tell me - where are we going that others don't dare? Because all I see is the U.S. following in the footsteps of Greece.

[LostDuke]

We don't live in different ciuntries at all. I think we are seeing things through a different lens that's all. I am an optimist, I love my country for what it is and I think there must be a reason or two for the amount of people who want to live here, who pays attention and love what we stand for around the world. Am happy, and since I am not a sore loser ( all those matches were not going to loose themselves, I had to work for it) I can loose an election without thinking that because my side lost the end of America is near.

We have election so that one side always loses, but lately has become aggravating the amount of whining and moaning.

Dude seriously people who are so upset with their countries should vote with their feet sometimes. Proud to stay and win some elections, loose some elections as it should be. Only in countries like Iran and North Korea one side never looses, that's how it's supposed to work here. The other side is made of Americans too, deal with it, more of them voted for the guy who won. The following elections went different if I recall correctly right?


Ps I wish the day will come when you drive through the rural Siuth without seeing a Team Slavery flag for YEARS, not days.

[Sensei]

We don't live in different ciuntries at all. I think we are seeing things through a different lens that's all. I am an optimist, I love my country for what it is and I think there must be a reason or two for the amount of people who want to live here, who pays attention and love what we stand for around the world. Am happy, and since I am not a sore loser ( all those matches were not going to loose themselves, I had to work for it) I can loose an election without thinking that because my side lost the end of America is near.

We have election so that one side always loses, but lately has become aggravating the amount of whining and moaning.

Dude seriously people who are so upset with their countries should vote with their feet sometimes. Proud to stay and win some elections, loose some elections as it should be. Only in countries like Iran and North Korea one side never looses, that's how it's supposed to work here. The other side is made of Americans too, deal with it, more of them voted for the guy who won. The following elections went different if I recall correctly right?


Ps I wish the day will come when you drive through the rural Siuth without seeing a Team Slavery flag for YEARS, not days.

I'm not talking about losing elections. Much of our problems are policy decisions spanning 40+ years. Nor did I say that it is a bad place to live or that the end is near. America will not become the ugliest house on the block for quite some time. It is the trajectory that gives me great pause - a trajectory that will require far more than a Republican POTUS to change.

[Mr Pink]

Very interesting:
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling...y-reciprocity/

By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.

The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.

My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.

Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

I’ll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry. As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.

[breakingtime91]

Very interesting:
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling...y-reciprocity/

interesting for sure, but I wouldn't want to be the first person to test the waters.

[JTQ]

This should open the door for polygamy and those who may have been interested in marrying their close relatives that have been previously denied the opportunity.