PDA

View Full Version : guns and gay marriage ?


jamesob
11-05-2008, 9:27 PM
i was listening to the radio this morning and heard that a judge in california could possibly do away with the amended constitution on gay marriage. they said that a judge could deem it unconstitutional under the federal law therefore get rid of the law here in california. now i personally am not in favor of gay marriage but i got to thinking that if this did happen that it could be a good thing for us gun owners in california. could this mean that judge would be forced to enforce all laws that are unconstitutional in california since the federal law says that its ok to own assault weapons and other firearms? if this would be the case i would personlly give away some dude to another dude and be happy for them.

gir007
11-05-2008, 9:37 PM
I think it would be a good thing. and maybe some of the pink pistols would even spice things up for gun owners hehe. it should sent some light for basic rights regardless of select people think otherwise.

Manic Moran
11-05-2008, 9:38 PM
since the federal law says that its ok to own assault weapons and other firearms?

It does? Feds just don't currently ban them. Federal government hasn't said very much about a State's position on such things.

NTM

jamesob
11-05-2008, 9:42 PM
It does? Feds just don't currently ban them. Federal government hasn't said very much about a State's position on such things.

NTMpeople in other states can't buy assault weapons? if they can that means its ok or am i missing something. and its not federal law saying what the state does it the state obeying federal laws.

Linus
11-05-2008, 9:47 PM
It would be a good start...

dfletcher
11-05-2008, 10:13 PM
i was listening to the radio this morning and heard that a judge in california could possibly do away with the amended constitution on gay marriage. they said that a judge could deem it unconstitutional under the federal law therefore get rid of the law here in california. now i personally am not in favor of gay marriage but i got to thinking that if this did happen that it could be a good thing for us gun owners in california. could this mean that judge would be forced to enforce all laws that are unconstitutional in california since the federal law says that its ok to own assault weapons and other firearms? if this would be the case i would personlly give away some dude to another dude and be happy for them.

As I understand it, if the just passed amendment conflicted with federal law a federal judge, I presume eventually SCOTUS, could strike down the state amendment. For example, if a state adopted an amendment to their constitution which banned marriage between a woman whose skin happened to be black and a man whose skin happened to be white, or which established restrictive covenants in housing or denied woman the right to I presume, since these violate federal law, a federal court would strike down the amendment(s).

Sleepy1988
11-05-2008, 10:29 PM
You shouldn't call them "assault weapons". That's a term invented by antis. I'm extremely pissed that the court will possibly strike down this amendment, the will of the people, but upheld our states "assault weapons" ban, something that violates one of the amendments in the federal constitution.

jamesob
11-05-2008, 10:36 PM
You shouldn't call them "assault weapons". That's a term invented by antis. I'm extremely pissed that the court will possibly strike down this amendment, the will of the people, but upheld our states "assault weapons" ban, something that violates one of the amendments in the federal constitution.

yes i know i normally call them "so called assualt weapons" got a little lazy. to me nothings an assault weapon until its used in a crime'

elSquid
11-05-2008, 10:36 PM
i was listening to the radio this morning and heard that a judge in california could possibly do away with the amended constitution on gay marriage. they said that a judge could deem it unconstitutional under the federal law therefore get rid of the law here in california.

Well, there already is a Federal law, and it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

-- Michael

pullnshoot25
11-05-2008, 10:36 PM
As I understand it, if the just passed amendment conflicted with federal law a federal judge, I presume eventually SCOTUS, could strike down the state amendment. For example, if a state adopted an amendment to their constitution which banned marriage between a woman whose skin happened to be black and a man whose skin happened to be white, or which established restrictive covenants in housing or denied woman the right to I presume, since these violate federal law, a federal court would strike down the amendment(s).

It hasn't happened so far to the other 44 states that have marriage amendments...

Toolbox X
11-05-2008, 10:39 PM
I see nothing but irony when I hear gun people say how wrong it is to remove people's right's, unless the rights have to do with being gay.

And...

I see nothing but irony when I hear pro-gay-rights people say how wrong it is to remove people's right's, unless the rights have to do with guns.

elSquid
11-05-2008, 10:41 PM
I see nothing but irony when I hear gun people say how wrong it is to remove people's right's, unless the rights have to do with being gay.

And...

I see nothing but irony when I hear pro-gay-rights people say how wrong it is to remove people's right's, unless the rights have to do with guns.

No argument there.

-- Michael

hoffmang
11-05-2008, 10:47 PM
A decision in California strengthening equal protections laws will help gun owners. However, luckily a loss on the specific challenge to 8 would in most cases not hurt gun rights beyond losing the opportunity to expand individual rights against government interference.

-Gene

AggregatVier
11-05-2008, 11:24 PM
Ironic is voting to restrict people's rights while voting to give chickens bigger cages.

jamesob
11-05-2008, 11:26 PM
Ironic is voting to restrict people's rights while voting to give chickens bigger cages.

hmmm. it is ironic.

Matt C
11-05-2008, 11:33 PM
Name one other "right" where the only possible way it can be exercised is for the State to take some specific action (rather than simply not interfering). The whole reason I voted for this is so that government will eventually by forced out of the marriage business altogether by a federal court.

hoffmang
11-05-2008, 11:43 PM
Name one other "right" where the only possible way it can be exercised is for the State to take some specific action (rather than simply not interfering).

I think you have that backward. The state was taking the action of checking the gender of both parties to a state license before in re Marriage Cases. It is now being forced back into the business of confirming the gender of the applicants differ. It takes less action to only confirm that there are two people on the license and not check gender.

-Gene

sb_pete
11-05-2008, 11:53 PM
It hasn't happened so far to the other 44 states that have marriage amendments...

lol, no California judges in those other 44 states though:TFH:

tyrist
11-05-2008, 11:53 PM
I will say it again and again....nobody has the "right" to marry anyone in anyway. There is no right to marry...it's just not a right and in most cases it is merely a practice of ones religion. Just have the government remove the "benefits" of marriage and then everyone is equal again.

On the other hand....the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives people the "right to bare arms". This is actually a fundamental right. Feinsteins ad on radio was super lame saying marriage was a fundamental right which it is not...yet she believes firearms are not a right....which it clearly is.

I voted no on 8 because marriage has absolutely no place in any constitution federal, state, or otherwise.....there is no right to marry so it need not be defined.

jamesob
11-06-2008, 12:08 AM
I will say it again and again....nobody has the "right" to marry anyone in anyway. There is no right to marry...it's just not a right and in most cases it is merely a practice of ones religion. Just have the government remove the "benefits" of marriage and then everyone is equal again.

On the other hand....the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives people the "right to bare arms". This is actually a fundamental right. Feinsteins ad on radio was super lame saying marriage was a fundamental right which it is not...yet she believes firearms are not a right....which it clearly is.

I voted no on 8 because marriage has absolutely no place in any constitution federal, state, or otherwise.....there is no right to marry so it need not be defined.
i know what your saying and i agree that the constitution of the u.s doesn't mention marriage as a right. obama has already said that in his mind marriage would be under the right to privacy. lol ,that makes me laugh because marriage is public knowledge and nothing private about it.

JohnJW
11-06-2008, 12:10 AM
I see nothing but irony when I hear gun people say how wrong it is to remove people's right's, unless the rights have to do with being gay.

And...

I see nothing but irony when I hear pro-gay-rights people say how wrong it is to remove people's right's, unless the rights have to do with guns.


I keep saying the LGBT community is just ripe with potential NRA members. . . .

aplinker
11-06-2008, 1:25 AM
This is pretty much why I voted no. There's no reason to define something here.

though... .... ...

I will say it again and again....nobody has the "right" to marry anyone in anyway. There is no right to marry...it's just not a right and in most cases it is merely a practice of ones religion. Just have the government remove the "benefits" of marriage and then everyone is equal again.

On the other hand....the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives people the "right to bare arms". This is actually a fundamental right. Feinsteins ad on radio was super lame saying marriage was a fundamental right which it is not...yet she believes firearms are not a right....which it clearly is.

I voted no on 8 because marriage has absolutely no place in any constitution federal, state, or otherwise.....there is no right to marry so it need not be defined.
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/barearms.jpg


Did you mean bear arms? ;)

Toolbox X
11-06-2008, 1:32 AM
I will say it again and again....nobody has the "right" to marry anyone in anyway. There is no right to marry...it's just not a right and in most cases it is merely a practice of ones religion. Just have the government remove the "benefits" of marriage and then everyone is equal again.

On the other hand....the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives people the "right to bare arms". This is actually a fundamental right. Feinsteins ad on radio was super lame saying marriage was a fundamental right which it is not...yet she believes firearms are not a right....which it clearly is.

I disagree. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution specifically WITHOUT a Bill of Rights because the entire idea of a free society is you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. (Note: You do NOT have the right to NOT be offended by someone. You do have the right to walk away though.) The Founding Fathers feared (and rightfully so) that creating a Bill of Rights would limit people to only the rights specifically stated in the Bill of Rights. And that is exactly what has happened.

The reason the Founding Fathers went back and wrote the Bill of Rights is because many of the states would not ratify the Constitution without a specific Bill of Rights.

Looking back, I think the Founding Fathers made the correct decision. The Bill of Rights is incorrectly assumed to be the only rights we have, but without that specific list there would not be the guidelines we desperately cling to when our leaders try to take our few remaining rights away.

I think if the Founding Fathers could go back and change things, they would have expanded the initial Bill of Rights to cover a number of other areas, such as progressive taxation, religion in politics, and political fund-raising, to name a few.

rynando
11-06-2008, 2:05 AM
I disagree. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution specifically WITHOUT a Bill of Rights because the entire idea of a free society is you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights of others.

Disagree or not, tryist is correct. As an example, I had a poly sci profesor who carried around one of those pocket constitutions and lived for chance to whip it out whenever some moron would start spouting off about his supposed "rights." He'd ask the student to find the "right" he was blabbing about in the booklet. If it wasn't in there, it wasn't a "right."

R

forgiven
11-06-2008, 2:25 AM
Disagree or not, tryist is correct. As an example, I had a poly sci profesor who carried around one of those pocket constitutions and lived for chance to whip it out whenever some moron would start spouting off about his supposed "rights." He'd ask the student to find the "right" he was blabbing about in the booklet. If it wasn't in there, it wasn't a "right."

R
I'm going to get me of those pocket constitutions.

Rover
11-06-2008, 3:17 AM
I think if the Founding Fathers could go back and change things, they would have expanded the initial Bill of Rights to cover a number of other areas, such as progressive taxation, religion in politics, and political fund-raising, to name a few.

I agree 100% there, we like to assume we know what the founding fathers would do about certain things, but truthfully we don't know. There are so many issues that pop up in today's society that they hadn't even heard of, much less thought prevalent enough in their day and age to include in the bill of rights. That's why I defer to your understanding of the Constitution when deciding on an issue such as gay marriage. Does it hurt a non-consenting individual? If the answer is no, then I will always vote to allow it. I felt the same way about all firearms long before I started shooting. Are you looking to buy a fully automatic short-barrel rifle with a folding stock in order to harm somebody? If the answer is no then you should have every right to buy any weapon you can afford. Do you need such a weapon? Can't you just have a flint-lock instead? I don't know and don't care if you need it, you get it if you want it. Does anybody need to marry somebody of the same sex? Who knows, it doesn't hurt anybody, so give it a try.

In my opinion, if you voted Yes, you have no right to whine about any restriction on firearms, past present or future.

Of course I'm also of the opinion that all the benefits of marriage that the gay rights movement is trying to get are B.S. and no couple gay and straight should be getting any of them with the exception of the right to name next of kin for medical reasons, and that should be open to anybody, no reason I shouldn't be allowed to put a good friend in charge of making crucial medical decisions. However tax benefits? Why do two people who exchanged rings and ate some cake get a discount, and I as a single guy get to pay ful price when we all rely on the government to an equal extent and are granted the same benefits.

383green
11-06-2008, 8:06 AM
On the other hand....the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives people the "right to bare arms".

The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights; it protects pre-existing natural rights of free people.

tyrist
11-06-2008, 8:30 AM
If the LGBT community wanted to truely beable to marry they need to start their own religious sect which specifically practices homosexual marriage.

The Director
11-06-2008, 8:39 AM
What kind of BS is this? They already enjoy every single common law right that a straight couple does, and now we need to endorse their lifestlye choice by letting them pretend they are married?

Caput tuum in ano est, my friends. This has nothing at all to do with gun rights. Gun rights are guaranteed by the constitution.

Restrictions by color of skin? Wrong and unconstitutional

Restrictions by gender or age? Wrong and unconstitutional.

Restrictions by Sexual Orientation? - I'll tell you what, just as soon as a man can get married to a man and impregnate him, then I'll go with it. Until then, it goes against the natural order of things.

And before you guys mention a double standard, I'll give you another one. A woman four months pregnant was recently crossing the street at a crosswalk when she was hit by a drunk driver. She and the baby were killed. Courts found the man guilty of TWO counts of manslaughter, one for the woman, and one for the baby.

It was convenient for the courts to defend the unborn child in that circumstance - after all the man had extinguished two lives that day. But talk about abortion.....oh no - we have to give people the choice!!!!!!!

I find it hilarious many gays are pro choice as well. The irony on THAT is amazing.

kris
11-06-2008, 8:40 AM
I'm going to get me of those pocket constitutions.

And you should. And while you are at it, get a bunch to hand out.

https://secure.heritage.org/firstPrinciples/pocketconstitution.aspx


They're free, but you can make a donation if you wish. Mine came in a few weeks and they are handy.

:79:

k.

CSACANNONEER
11-06-2008, 8:55 AM
i was listening to the radio this morning and heard that a judge in california could possibly do away with the amended constitution on gay marriage. they said that a judge could deem it unconstitutional under the federal law therefore get rid of the law here in california. now i personally am not in favor of gay marriage but i got to thinking that if this did happen that it could be a good thing for us gun owners in california. could this mean that judge would be forced to enforce all laws that are unconstitutional in california since the federal law says that its ok to own assault weapons and other firearms? if this would be the case i would personlly give away some dude to another dude and be happy for them.

So, I'm still trying to figure out how under Federal law it is OK to have AWs? I don't think there is even a current legal definition of AWs anywhere in any Federal law. No other state has the right to own AWs because, there is NO SUCH THING AS AWs in any other state! Now, to answer the rest of your question, if prop 8 is found unconstitutional, it will not FORCE any judge to automatically repeal the Ca. AW ban. Of course, it won't hurt our cause at all.

Decoligny
11-06-2008, 9:03 AM
people in other states can't buy assault weapons? if they can that means its ok or am i missing something. and its not federal law saying what the state does it the state obeying federal laws.

There is no Federal Law against eating Chicken wings on a bus stop bench on the 4th of July. That doesn't mean that if California passed a law frobidding it, that the Federal Judge would force California to allow it because the Feds "allow it".

Laws do not allow anything. Laws on prohibit certain things.

If there is not Federal Assault Weapons Ban, that means that each state makes its own rules regarding the issue.

Another good analogy would be "dry counties". In some states certain counties don't allow the sale of alcoholic beverages. There is no State Law against it, there is no Federal Law against it. That doesn't mean the Feds hav a law saying "It's OK to sell alcoholic beverages" that can be used to force the dry counties to allow selling of alcohol.

soopafly
11-06-2008, 9:03 AM
This has nothing at all to do with gun rights. You are correct. I'll go further and say this has nothing to do with gay rights or gay marriage either. It has nothing to do with protecting "the sanctity of marriage" or keeping the children safe. It is simply about equal protection under the law. Prop 8 violates this. It baffles me how pro-prop 8 gunnies can't see the implications of this and how it affects equal protection concepts in other aspects of law(hint: AW ban, "safe" handgun roster, etc.)




And before you guys mention a double standard, I'll give you another one. A woman four months pregnant was recently crossing the street at a crosswalk when she was hit by a drunk driver. She and the baby were killed. Courts found the man guilty of TWO counts of manslaughter, one for the woman, and one for the baby.

It was convenient for the courts to defend the unborn child in that circumstance - after all the man had extinguished two lives that day. But talk about abortion.....oh no - we have to give people the choice!!!!!!!

I find it hilarious many gays are pro choice as well. The irony on THAT is amazing.
Dude, why are you even brining this up here? If you want to start a debate on abortion, start a new thread.

movie zombie
11-06-2008, 9:24 AM
[QUOTE=soopafly;1669935]It has nothing to do with protecting "the sanctity of marriage" or keeping the children safe. It is simply about equal protection under the law. Prop 8 violates this. It baffles me how pro-prop 8 gunnies can't see the implications of this and how it affects equal protection concepts in other aspects of law(hint: AW ban, "safe" handgun roster, etc.)
QUOTE]

+1000.

movie zombie

ps marriage is a contract issued by the state. that people take that contract to be sanctified by a church is their choice, not a requirement. it always has been and always will be about property. as such there is no way one group should be allowed to disenfranchise another group from the law. if a church doesn't want to sanction those marriages, so be it. but the government must apply contractual law equally.

The Director
11-06-2008, 9:31 AM
Soopafly,

You'll never, ever convince me that the founding fathers would ever envision gay marriage. That's calling an evil thing good, in my book.

Besides, it's already illegal in the majority of US states, as well as federally. It is equal rights under the law - now they are equally banned as in other states.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with guns, I say again, a constitutional right. Please show me where the right to gay marriage is in the list of amendments.

soopafly
11-06-2008, 9:35 AM
Soopafly,

You'll never, ever convince me that the founding fathers would ever envision gay marriage. That's calling an evil thing good, in my book.

Besides, it's already illegal in the majority of US states, as well as federally. It is equal rights under the law - now they are equally banned as in other states.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with guns, I say again, a constitutional right. Please show me where the right to gay marriage is in the list of amendments.
<sigh> You miss my point.

The Director
11-06-2008, 9:41 AM
What is the point? As Movie Zombie said, if you want to take it to the contract level, then do so. While you're at it, why not let a man have two or three wives, like they may have had in their own culture.

I tell you, I am shocked and outraged that a Bedouin cannot move here from the Sinai peninsula and still be married to his three wives. What an insidious violation of his rights, and how discriminatory!

Where does it end? Marriage is an institution. We need to have a definition for it for all kinds of administrative purposes. We have chosen the definition that Marriage is a union between one man and one woman in this country. It may not be that way in other places but it is IN THIS COUNTRY.

There. Now the religion is all gone out of that argument!

Kestryll
11-06-2008, 9:46 AM
As if we didn't have enough Prop 8 threads going in the Election forum...