PDA

View Full Version : AP article on Jerry Brown: "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."


bwiese
01-26-2010, 2:03 PM
AP article on AG Jerry Brown. Underlining supplied by me...

http://www.kfsm.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-jerry-brown,0,4713229.story

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brown's tenure as attorney general seen as safe, steady as he prepared for run for governor

PAUL ELIAS Associated Press Writer
2:57 AM CST, January 26, 2010


OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Jerry Brown has spent his three years as California's attorney general as he has his five decades in politics: being a predictably unpredictable office holder and perennial candidate.

As California's top prosecutor, the lifelong Democrat with distinguished political bloodlines has won wide support from district attorneys, police chiefs and sheriffs.

But he has disappointed many death penalty foes, consumer advocates and gun control proponents who hoped he would support their causes.

Now that the 71-year-old lawyer is expected to run for governor this year, his performance as the state's chief law enforcement officer is being scrutinized for harbingers of how he would run California.

Although he has not formally announced his candidacy, Brown's tremendous name recognition has already served him well. He has collected $12 million in campaign funds and polls consistently show him to be such a favorite that potential Democratic gubernatorial rivals such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom bowed out of the fight.

The son of popular two-term governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, he began his political career as a community college trustee in the 1960s. He rocketed to national prominence when he won the governorship in 1974 and ran three times for president. Before being elected attorney general, he served for eight years as Oakland's mayor.

Along the way, the Yale law school graduate and former Jesuit seminarian established a political identity based partly on his eclectic personal style.

As governor, he dated singer Linda Ronstadt, lived in a $250-a-month apartment rather than the newly built governor's mansion, and earned the nickname Governor Moonbeam for his proposals. As mayor, he burnished his crime fighter credentials, living in a gritty neighborhood in downtown Oakland and waging war against Oakland's violent street gangs.

When Brown took office as attorney general, he promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinions — including his opposition to the death penalty.

When two gay couples sued last year to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage, Brown declined to defend the law, saying he thought marriage a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation.

Commentators said Brown's quiet exit from the current litigation over Proposition 8 is politically savvy and underscores the steady and safe course he has charted as attorney general.

Critics on the right and left grumble that Brown has done little more than serve as a caretaker as attorney general, other than position himself to run for governor. The left hoped and the right feared Brown would raise the prestige and power of the office much as Eliot Spitzer did in New York when he took on nontraditional causes such as Wall Street corruption.

Brown has angered gun control proponents, especially when he urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Chicago's handgun ban.

"I have respect for the Second Amendment," said Brown, who owns three guns and targets shoots occasionally on his ranch east of Chico, Calif. "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."

Former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, a Democrat, said he had expected Brown to use the office more aggressively and creatively.

"I think that his mind probably has been on running for governor and has been for some time," said Van de Kamp, who launched his own gubernatorial campaign in 1990 at the end of his eight-year term as attorney general. "That's very time consuming and distracting."

Such criticisms agitate Brown.

"Some people on the outside say government should do everything," Brown said during a Christmas Eve interview in his downtown Oakland office . "Well that is an endless expansion of government and I don't believe in that. You have limits. You have a limited number of people and hours in the day. So I set priorities."

Brown came into office with four major goals: combat global warming and street gangs, stand up for the workers in the "underground economy" and bolster the state Department of Justice's law enforcement arm.

By most accounts, he has followed through on his campaign pledges, often with his dog Dharma sleeping at his feet and his wife and unpaid chief adviser, former Gap Inc. general counsel Ann Gust Brown, in the office next door. Brown also takes credit for slashing $100 million from the attorney general's annual budget, which was $750 million last year.

Using lawsuits and legal threats, he strong-armed more than a dozen cities and counties to consider global warming when considering development projects. He has filed several lawsuits against car washes, construction companies and others accused of shortchanging workers out of overtime and earned wages.

Brown also jumped into the mortgage meltdown crisis, filing a high-profile lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. in July 2008, which he touted as a major component of his office's consumer protection efforts.

"On the stuff that he was focused on, he did a very aggressive and good job," said Joe Mathews, a scholar at the New America Foundation, a non-profit think tank. "But he doesn't appear to have been a big risk taker."

Brown has won key support of influential law enforcement authorities, partly by defending against every death penalty appeal filed.
Now, the state's oldest first-term attorney general wants to go back to Sacramento to fix the nation's most populous state.

"I've seen the state from the point of view as governor and now I have seen the state from the point of view as a lawyer to the governor. I know a lot about how it works."

But Brown conceded that the state's financial woes and the seemingly endless political snarls of state government would make the job challenging.

"I think," he said, "to succeed will be extraordinarily difficult."

* * * * *

PolishMike
01-26-2010, 2:08 PM
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 2:16 PM
Well as a true Libertarian, I am sick of having to choose between authoritarian Republicans and nanny-state Democrats. While Brown is not perfect, a pro-gun Democrat is a breath of fresh air.

mblat
01-26-2010, 2:22 PM
We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.

Flintlock Tom
01-26-2010, 2:27 PM
I would be curious to know how people on here weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.
In my opinion "gun rights" is a social issue.
For me, the ONLY thing Brown has going for him is his stand on gun rights.
IMO he is a hypocrite when he "promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinion" and then refused to support the law because, in his opinion, "marriage [is] a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation."
He is also, IMO, on the wrong side of "the underground economy" (illegal aliens) and "Global Warming".

dfletcher
01-26-2010, 2:37 PM
For those Democrats who don't like his position on guns, to borrow from Atwater "who else are you going to vote for?" No one, I think. Seems to me his concern in the fall election would be getting enough folks to the polls for him to beat Whitman.

bigstick61
01-26-2010, 2:40 PM
"Using lawsuits and legal threats, he strong-armed more than a dozen cities and counties to consider global warming when considering development projects."

Stuff like this worries me considerably. This is not what California needs. There are of course plenty of other things that Brown is not good on. Fine, he is okay on RKBA issues, but they are not the end-all, be-all of issues when it comes to choosing which candidate to vote for. A high priority, sure, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who I think is terrible on the bulk of issues. When you weigh these things on a scale, the RKBA stance does not outweigh them. Personally, I think it is unethical to be a single-issue voter. If you can't consider all of the issues, you should not vote, but that's just me I guess.

While Meg Whitman isn't assured to be the GOP candidate, she is nonetheless also terrible, possibly even moreso than Brown. Two bigtime leftists as the main candidates would really make it a battle to see who is the lesser of two evils. I think the difference won't be much, when all things are considered. If Whitman gets the nomination, given my issues with Brown, I may have to vote for a non-major candidate in the gubernatorial election. If someone asked me, to use a gun-related analogy, if I'd rather be shot in the face with a .380 or a 9mm, my answer would obviously be neither, and if the scenario is to be made analogous to the election, I do have that choice, even if it means I might get shot in the face anyways.

bwiese
01-26-2010, 2:40 PM
In my opinion "gun rights" is a social issue.

Yup.

IMO he is a hypocrite when he "promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinion" and then refused to support the law because, in his opinion, "marriage [is] a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation."

It is. Equal protection, baby.

Sorry you're so uncomfortable with freedom. Go visit your friend Bull Connors.

Just because some loons vote for Prop 8 doesn't mean it stands or that mob rule applies. Bull Connors thought he could keep black people isolated and still to a measure unfree because "Southern mob rule" liked that. Federal troops informed him otherwise.

bwiese
01-26-2010, 2:41 PM
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.

Guns first above all others.

bigstick61
01-26-2010, 2:43 PM
So I suppose I am a loon then for voting for Prop. 8, as are tons of people. You don't have a right to have the longstanding definition of marriage altered by the state to suit your lifestyle and force it to essentially be recognized by everyone as just fine and dandy. IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to proscribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose); changing the definition of marriage in this fashion is certainly contrary to such a policy.

Hopi
01-26-2010, 2:47 PM
Well as a true Libertarian, I am sick of having to choose between authoritarian Republicans and nanny-state Democrats. While Brown is not perfect, a pro-gun Democrat is a breath of fresh air.

Amen.

grunz
01-26-2010, 2:48 PM
Very good! An adult running for office in 2010, imagine that!

Vtec44
01-26-2010, 2:56 PM
Wow, I thought he owns more than 3 guns.

bwiese
01-26-2010, 3:03 PM
So I suppose I am a loon then for voting for Prop. 8, as are tons of people. You don't have a right to have the longstanding definition of marriage altered by the state to suit your lifestyle and force it to essentially be recognized by everyone as just fine and dandy.

Irrelevant argument.

Nobody 'owns' the definition of marriage. And the government can define legal terms - look at the definition of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip' etc.

If that's not your definition of marriage, don't go marry someone of your same sex. Problem solved.

You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation.


IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to proscribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose);You have not identified any harm to anyone except to your hurt feelings. And indeed you are proscribing morality if you support that.

I guess you feel you have to pick a fight with someone who has different ethics than yourself

What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.

mblat
01-26-2010, 3:04 PM
Personally, I think it is unethical to be a single-issue voter. If you can't consider all of the issues, you should not vote, but that's just me I guess.

I am just wondering - I am two issues voter ( guns and taxes ). Is it ethical for me to vote?:rolleyes:

nat
01-26-2010, 3:05 PM
So I suppose I am a loon then for voting for Prop. 8, as are tons of people. You don't have a right to have the longstanding definition of marriage altered by the state to suit your lifestyle and force it to essentially be recognized by everyone as just fine and dandy. IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to proscribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose); changing the definition of marriage in this fashion is certainly contrary to such a policy.

By not supporting equal rights for all people and only recognizing marriage between a man and woman, the state is saying what is morally right.

I love it..........."freedoms for who I think is morally ok." :rolleyes:

sholling
01-26-2010, 3:21 PM
In my opinion as someone old enough to remember Governor Moonbeam I expect that he will be indistinguishable from Arnold Schwarzenegger on gun rights. I expect him to take a position that outright bans on revolvers and hunting rifles is unconstitutional, but that bans on carry of any kind, and bans on "assault" weapons, and tight regulation of ammo are just fine.

I also fully expect him to manage to be be an even bigger economic disaster for the state than Arnold has been. I fully expect that he will roll over for public employees unions and do his level best to run all manufacturing and land development out of California. And you can forget any transportation improvements. He banned transportation and infrastructure improvements the last time he was governor. In other words 4-8 years of ever higher unemployment and energy prices in the name of Gaia. This is a religion for him.

Quite frankly I couldn't care less if he supports gay marriage, plural marriages, or marriages to goats. I'm all for letting anyone that wants to be miserable for the rest of their lives be as miserable as they want. But the economic damage that this nut case is going to bring about scares the heck out of me. I may just write in a name in 2010.

PEBKAC
01-26-2010, 3:37 PM
He's about as close as I'll get to somebody I like for office...he agrees with that imbecile Cuomo in NY on a few too many things though (read: any things). I have doubts that anyone, Brown included, can really turn CA around given the capitol building full of leeches that like to call themselves representatives, but having a veto on gun issues would be nice.

Frankly, I can't help but be a one issue voter in this case, as guns are one of the few important variables that can actually change from Governor to Governor...all the other stuff is largely empty words as those words will run straight into serious problems in the translation from words to action when the rubber actually hits the road (ie when said translation hits the Legislature and all the fun little laws "we the people" passed). :rolleyes:

RudyN
01-26-2010, 3:38 PM
I to am worried about him as I remember when "Moonbeam" was the goernor last time. Also he did live in a cheap apartment, but no one has told use how many millions it cost to set up the security for that "cheap" aprtment.

bigstick61
01-26-2010, 3:44 PM
So I suppose I am a loon then for voting for Prop. 8, as are tons of people. You don't have a right to have the longstanding definition of marriage altered by the state to suit your lifestyle and force it to essentially be recognized by everyone as just fine and dandy.

Irrelevant argument.

Nobody 'owns' the definition of marriage. And the government can define legal terms - look at the definition of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip' etc.

If that's not your definition of marriage, don't go marry someone of your same sex. Problem solved.

You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation.

Just because the government takes a power upon itself does not mean it should; it does not make it right. Definitions need to be solid for a reason. With marriage, the term has been defined pretty much the same way for millenia. To change it just because someone does not like that their lifestyle is not legitimized by government endorsement and thinks that violates their rights is to do so without any good reason. In this case, the government would be enshrining immorality as legitimate, which is beyond what it should do and it certainly violates the principle of government I believe in, which as I mentioned, is first do no harm.

As for rights violations...was anyone prevented from being a couple, having a ceremony, and calling it a marriage themselves? No. When it comes to definitions, if marriage is defined as between a man and a woman by the government, for which there is a massive amount of evidence to back the legitimacy of that definition (the use of that definition for millenia IMO is quite sufficient to make the point), let's see how that applies to homosexual and heterosexual individuals (since I take it that is where discrimination is alleged to be occurring), and I say individuals, not couples, because we are discussing individual rights. Can a heterosexual man marry another under this definition? No. Can a homosexual one? No. Can a heterosexual man marry a woman? Yes. Can a homosexual man do so? Yes. When strictly adhering to the appropriate definition, there is no discrimination against any individual person as applies to sexual orientation. Neither can get a license which calls their union a marriage if it involves someone of the same gender, and both can get a license when it involves someone of the opposite gender. Under that law, they are treated equally.



IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to prescribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose);

You have not identified any harm to anyone except to your hurt feelings. And indeed you are prescribing morality if you support that.

By enshrining immorality as morality or as at least acceptable in some fashion as a matter of official government policy (as opposed to just letting people do what they want privately, which is not the same as this issue, since the government is very much involved), you make it more difficult to successfully promote virtue to others. This may be nothing but a matter of concern to you, but it is not to everyone. I personally believe that government exists for very limited reasons, and those limits include protection for the liberty of the individual, but liberty is not an end in itself; it is a means to a spiritual end, the freedom to pursue virtue, and the government should not be allowed to misguide people or promote the opposite when it comes to such matters. It is a matter to be left to private actors.

If government involvement on such an issue is going to, under the circumstances, only result in such a situation, then the government should if possible get itself out of the issue. So in this case, if the government cannot seem to be able to do anything but redefine marriage in this manner, then it should get itself out of marriage if possible. Of course, there is a reason why government has long been involved in marriage, since it is a spiritual, material, and legal event.

Now, to coerce virtue, which is what I oppose when it does not involve violating the rights of others (like robbery, murder, and yes, even the controversial abortion), would be in the context of this discussion, to say no one can be a couple with another person of the same gender and to thus punish homosexual couples, via fines, prison, or whatever. That is not what I propose, and it is not what Prop. 8 does.


I guess you feel you have to pick a fight with someone who has different ethics than yourself

What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.

I don't know who Bull Connors is, and I really don't care. I never said I don't support the 14th Amendment--to argue against such in this case would be to argue against a strawman--nor have I ever argued against actual rights, but just because someone claims something is a right, does not automatically make it so. In this case, it involves the issuance of a license to have a certain status by the government, which is not a right to recieve. It really does not involve banning anything, either, at least it did not initially. It involved the courts changing the definition of marriage and the voters changing it back. Again, you don't have a right to have every defintion be favorable to your lifestyle. I don't see this as a violation of the 14th Amendment. You are free to associate with an have a romantic relationshi with whoever you want in California, Prop. 8 or not, and you can call your relationship a marriage if you so choose, Prop. 8 or not, and with Prop. 8, a man cannot marry another man, regardless of their orientation, and any man of any orientation can still marry a woman. In the end, natural rights apply to individuals.

Steyr_223
01-26-2010, 3:48 PM
I to am worried about him as I remember when "Moonbeam" was the goernor last time. Also he did live in a cheap apartment, but no one has told use how many millions it cost to set up the security for that "cheap" aprtment.

Well, I can't speak for this time in Sac..However, when he was mayor he lived in a warehouse in the waterfront area..It was a combo live/work place..I did not see any security in the area..I do recall seeing him at the Oakland farmers market and Chinatown a few times with his wife/girlfriend and friends..No Blackwater type security looking guys..

My $.02

bwiese
01-26-2010, 3:50 PM
I don't know who Bull Connors is, and I really don't care.
Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

. Again, you don't have a right to have every defintion be favorable to your lifestyle.It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.

smogcity
01-26-2010, 3:55 PM
With this being a gun forum and all, lets just let the issue of gay rights be debated on calgayrights.net.

Gov. Moonbeam's got my vote. This will be the first Dem I've voted for in many years...

Mitch
01-26-2010, 3:59 PM
Well as a true Libertarian, I am sick of having to choose between authoritarian Republicans and nanny-state Democrats. While Brown is not perfect, a pro-gun Democrat is a breath of fresh air.

He's also a small government Democrat and always has been.

CharlieK
01-26-2010, 4:05 PM
Amen.
I'm with ya both.

Meg or Poizner will have economic/tax ideas that go in the right direction...but they're both apparently anti 2A.

Brown is another Arnold type...big government Progressive that says the right thing on guns but my very well vote another.

At this point, I'm going with the guy that's looking to REDUCE SPENDING, whichever gets the Republican nomination.

Mr Odgen would be great:
http://www.dalefogden.org/
But I'm more interested in keeping out a Progressive and dealing with spending. The Libertarians, Constutional Conservatives, fiscal Indepedents and the sort are growing in number...but not enough for Odgen I fear.

Flintlock Tom
01-26-2010, 4:10 PM
Yup.
It is. Equal protection, baby.

Sorry you're so uncomfortable with freedom. Go visit your friend Bull Connors.

Just because some loons vote for Prop 8 doesn't mean it stands or that mob rule applies. Bull Connors thought he could keep black people isolated and still to a measure unfree because "Southern mob rule" liked that. Federal troops informed him otherwise.

Wow! My statement was that Brown promised one thing and then did the opposite. How did you glean from my criticism of his hypocrisy that i am opposed to gay marriage?
That's a lot of conclusion jumping and misplaced passion.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-26-2010, 4:11 PM
Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.

Ding, ding, ding!!!!!!! Winner!!! And that is why I voted for Prop 8. (and others should keep in mind that not ALL voters in support of Prop 8 are bigots, homo-phobic, or whatever pigeon hole name/group that is commonly associated with anti-gay "marriage" issues). My vote was symbolic on getting the government out of a religious practice and let the aseembly get it right. Change the name of the "union" from "marriage", and give them all the same rights. Let the churches sort out how they want to do the rest. Hard to call yourself even remotely a Libertarian if you are letting the government dictate the terms of a religious practice.

That all said, I am most likely to vote for the first time in my life for a Democrat for Governor. Ronnie Reagan would be proud.

dantodd
01-26-2010, 4:12 PM
At this point, I'm going with the guy that's looking to REDUCE SPENDING, whichever gets the Republican nomination.


You did read the article right? You did see that JB knocked $100M off the AG's budget didn't you?

Mitch
01-26-2010, 4:17 PM
Brown is another Arnold type...big government Progressive that says the right thing on guns but my very well vote another.

You got anything to back that up with? Brown has always had a reputation as a stingy administrator.

At this point, I'm going with the guy that's looking to REDUCE SPENDING, whichever gets the Republican nomination.

He claims he reduced the DoJ's budget by $100 million. Say that's campaign trail crap and cut it in half: that's still a 7% reduction.

Whoever is actually nominated by the Republicans will almost certainly be one of the several high profile gun-grabbers routinely bashed here in this forum.

He or she will appreciate your vote, I'm sure.

Nose Nuggets
01-26-2010, 4:17 PM
So I suppose I am a loon then for voting for Prop. 8, as are tons of people. You don't have a right to have the longstanding definition of marriage altered by the state to suit your lifestyle and force it to essentially be recognized by everyone as just fine and dandy. IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to proscribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose); changing the definition of marriage in this fashion is certainly contrary to such a policy.

This is easily resolved. the government shouldn't have their hand in anything related to virtue or morality to begin with.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-26-2010, 4:21 PM
You did read the article right? You did see that JB knocked $100M off the AG's budget didn't you?

Brown really showed his "limited government" capabilities when he was Mayor of Oakland, and continues that practice at the AG's office. He can, and I believe he will be, fiscally consrvative, if only bacause of his true "hippie" beliefs of less government intrusion, and control, equals more freedom. Think about it. What did the true hippy stand for? Getting the government out of their lives, freedom, and keeping the government from being too powerful. Yeah, it seemed that the big issue was fighting against the draft and war, but using the analogy of what the draft meant to the Hippies, and was later lost in the college student protests, was the single most important thing to the hippies really the war or was it the intrusion of the government via a draft?

bigstick61
01-26-2010, 4:25 PM
I don't know who Bull Connors is, and I really don't care.

Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

My knowledge of history is substantial. Not knowing about one person and his actions does not really have a bearing on that, unless we're talking about a huge figure in history, which I would say that Bull Connors is not. In any case, I think that Connors and I would probably disagree on many things. And it's not about "different" or anything like that, and I don't see this as a matter of rights.



[quote="bigstick61"]Again, you don't have a right to have every defintion be favorable to your lifestyle.

It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.


I was using the rhetorical "your," not addressing you personally. And it is telling that you cannot avoid using the word "pair" when trying to articulate rights violations or lack of equal treatment. Natural rights apply to individuals. No individual is treated differently in respect to the law in this case.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.


At this point I think this may end up being the best course, at least in California. The government avoids doing what I would rather it not, but still maintains the necessary involvement in the legal aspects of marriage, albeit indirectly. Ultimately, I think we have strayed considerably off-topic with this course of argument.

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 4:27 PM
This is easily resolved. the government shouldn't have their hand in anything related to virtue or morality to begin with.

While ideally this true, it will never happen. The government will always meddle in marriage, and will always offer married couples Privileges and Immunities that single people do not get. As such, marriage must be available to all peoples, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or whatever. Therefore gay marriage must be recognized by the government as legal. Anything else is discriminatory.

It's sad that so many pro-gun people are so authoritarian on issues that make them feel uncomfortable. It's hypocrisy.

M. D. Van Norman
01-26-2010, 4:29 PM
It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”

bwiese
01-26-2010, 4:29 PM
You did read the article right? You did see that JB knocked $100M off the AG's budget didn't you?

$99,870,000 + Iggy's salary + Iggy's benefits ;)

dantodd
01-26-2010, 4:52 PM
$99,870,000 + Iggy's salary + Iggy's benefits ;)

That's a lotta Chins.

glockman19
01-26-2010, 4:55 PM
I'm all for Jerry Brown. He is used to running a California with a much smaller government. He'll do it again. and well too.

I plan on putting together at least one fund raiser for him.

If we can raise $100,000+ for his campaign he can not help but notice us and remember us when in office. Also opens doors for CalGuns Foundation.

If every active member just contributed $10 we could give him a check for over $130,000.

A good investment in my book.

Rusty_Rebar
01-26-2010, 5:01 PM
I think I will vote for Jerry. He seems to make sense to me, from what I have seen, and as AG he has been very accessible.

As far as the financial situation in California, I think that has a lot to do with out constitutional right to initiative.

We have gone and created propositions, that seem to make sense taken individually (in some cases), but aggregated have had a paralyzing effect on our economy.

There are so many mandates on what can be spent and where, when we need to re-allocate spending we are at a loss. This coupled with a completely ineffective legislature has given us a huge problem, that I doubt anyone will be able to fix.

I mean, come on, we have the 7th or 8th (have not checked in a while) largest economy in the world. We should be able to handle this.

Now, I will go off topic a bit. California has some of the best marijuana in the world. I mean top notch stuff. As I recall it is also the largest (monetarily) crop in California, yet we do not get a dime from this. Instead we insist on locking up people for growing it and pay for their costly incarceration.

Pure lunacy.

I also agree that we should not be in the business of marriage. The state should facilitate the legal (contractual) aspects of a union (or whatever you want to call it), and then if you want to be "married" go to your church. If your church wants to marry you, then they will, if not, then find another church.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-26-2010, 5:05 PM
$99,870,000 + Iggy's salary + Iggy's benefits ;)

That's the icing on the cake!!! Forgot about that!

Mitch
01-26-2010, 5:06 PM
It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”

It's amazing how many "gun rights advocates" will cheerfully support all kinds of other ridiculous prohibitions. Many of the arguments against gun control can be used, very effectively, against prohibitions against drugs, prostitution, etc.

Essentially, almost no one ever thinks about any of these things, they simply support their tribes. If your tribe is opposed to something the other tribe does, you're opposed too. It's as simple as that. Why think when you have clan leaders doing all your thinking for you? After all, American Idol might be on.

This is underscored quite nicely today in the United States by the hysteria over the Obama Administration. Anyone who wants to actually, you know, review the facts can see that the new Administration is not much different in any substantive way from the old one. And yet we have tea baggers working themselves into apoplexy about Obama carrying out the same policies they cheered when Bush was in charge. And on the other side you have Democrats who reviled Bush and called him every nasty name imaginable for his policies, yet gush over Obama has he continues those very same (formerly reprehensible) policies.

My tribe, your tribe, my country, their country, my flag, that flag, my god, their god. Who needs to think when you can just slap a label on an idea and stand on a street corner waving your fists?

BillCA
01-26-2010, 5:07 PM
Our firearms rights are a social issue. In California, they first demonized drunk driving (remember the MADD campaigns?) and made it socially unacceptable. Shortly thereafter, groups like HCI/Brady began demonizing guns and "dealers". A few years ago, the anti-smokers began demonizing not just the tobacco companies, but their "victims" - making it a crime to smoke in your own car with kids inside.

As much as none of us should be single-issue voters, I find that if a candidate does not support the RKBA - an explicitly defined and enumerated right - I cannot expect that candidate to support individual rights generally. Even if their fiscal policies are prudent, if the candidate doesn't respect our basic rights then we end up losing.

This state has seen forty years of Democrat control of the legislature (except for only 2 years) and during that time the golden sheen of California has diminished to that of tarnished brass. California's legislature has always pushed to spend more than it takes in, relying upon "growth" to pay the bills. Now that Democrats have allowed special interests and legislation to inhibit and impair growth, they cannot face cutting the unnecessary items from the budget.

At this point, I doubt the Republicans could do much better. They'd simply be lambasted in the media for cutting the amount of public dole money and being "cruel" to illegals, the poor or the unemployable. California's GDP accounts for 13% of the US GDP and it would be the 8th largest "country" GDP if it were its own soverign entity.

The fact that the political caretakers in its legislature have allowed the state to slide to the brink of bankruptcy speaks volumes about their inability to deal with fiscal matters.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 5:09 PM
If you are dead non of the rest matters. My guns keep me alive. Single issue voter here.

I don't care who you screw.

Fighting global warming is at best a waist of time and at worst designed to destroy our economy.

There are certain times in the life of all people when we must depend on others to survive: When we are very old, very sick, or very young. The question is not if a choice will be made; the question is who will make it.
Who do you want to make the choice? Your government or your family? Think about it. If the arbiter can say no, they can also say yes. Personally I'd rather trust my mother, and I don't even like my mother.

If all this confuses you remember I am a single issue voter and the issue is firearms because if you are dead nothing else matters.




I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 5:10 PM
I'm wondering how important the second amendment issue will be, once it's incorporated to the states. I know that some politicians will still try to make more restrictive gun laws, however, when they face strict scrutiny, will they be as ready to compete against that in much the same way as say trying to compete with the 1st amendment? And if they are humbled by incorporation, will Brown really be that necessary to ensure our 2A rights aren't trampled. When I look at it from that point of view, I'm rather hesitant to throw my vote to moonbeam.

Going off track for a moment and touching on homosexual marriage, I am absolutely opposed to homosexual marriage because of the doors it opens up. If homosexual marriage is recognized in this state as a "right", I would fully expect homosexual couples to assert their rights and demand clergy, who oppose homosexual marriage, marry them or face legal actions for violating their civil rights.

I've heard people attempt to refute this position as a weak argument, however, I find it highly unlikely that radical homosexuals won't seize on this opportunity to use Christian clergy as an example to make a point. The problem is, until such time as homosexual marriage is legal, they are unable to show their true intent. If homosexual marriage becomes a civil right in this state, then it will be too late. If homosexual couples were to restrict themselves to clergy who would be willing to marry them, I wouldn't be so quick to oppose that kind of union, regardless of how perverted I believe it is. But, I don't believe they will restrict themselves to ELCA Lutheran churches, liberal Episcopalian priests, or for that matter, Unitarians. So, I oppose homosexual marriage because past activities in the homosexual community almost guarantee that Christian clergy will come under fire from homosexuals who will aggressively assert their will against anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 5:14 PM
Yep, it's just you!:p

"Using lawsuits and legal threats, he strong-armed more than a dozen cities and counties to consider global warming when considering development projects."

Stuff like this worries me considerably. This is not what California needs. There are of course plenty of other things that Brown is not good on. Fine, he is okay on RKBA issues, but they are not the end-all, be-all of issues when it comes to choosing which candidate to vote for. A high priority, sure, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who I think is terrible on the bulk of issues. When you weigh these things on a scale, the RKBA stance does not outweigh them. Personally, I think it is unethical to be a single-issue voter. If you can't consider all of the issues, you should not vote, but that's just me I guess.

While Meg Whitman isn't assured to be the GOP candidate, she is nonetheless also terrible, possibly even moreso than Brown. Two bigtime leftists as the main candidates would really make it a battle to see who is the lesser of two evils. I think the difference won't be much, when all things are considered. If Whitman gets the nomination, given my issues with Brown, I may have to vote for a non-major candidate in the gubernatorial election. If someone asked me, to use a gun-related analogy, if I'd rather be shot in the face with a .380 or a 9mm, my answer would obviously be neither, and if the scenario is to be made analogous to the election, I do have that choice, even if it means I might get shot in the face anyways.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 5:23 PM
One rifle, one shotgun, and one handgun will pretty much handle it unless you are an enthusiast. Wow, I thought he owns more than 3 guns.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 5:31 PM
Bill:

I'm pretty much on your but Equal Protection will not float.


Irrelevant argument.

Nobody 'owns' the definition of marriage. And the government can define legal terms - look at the definition of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip' etc.

If that's not your definition of marriage, don't go marry someone of your same sex. Problem solved.

You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation.


You have not identified any harm to anyone except to your hurt feelings. And indeed you are proscribing morality if you support that.



What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.

dfletcher
01-26-2010, 5:31 PM
I am just wondering - I am two issues voter ( guns and taxes ). Is it ethical for me to vote?:rolleyes:

I have a system that has worked well for many years, I learned it up many years ago from Professor Irwin Corey a fellow with whom some of you may be aquainted - although if you don't know Bull Conner you may not know the Prof.

During the previous 10 months of an election cycle I list all the subjects taken from page one and the editorial page and if in a liberal city I assign a factor based on the paper's circulation relative to the population of that city but if in a conservative city I assign a factor based on the number of banks per square mile divide by average family income but of course exlude credit unions as those are run by charlatans allowing me to assign an exact whole number to each subject of 1 to 15 after which I subtract from the states GDP divided by the number of counties in the state excluding Indians not taxed.

Then I vote on guns only. ;)

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 5:38 PM
I'm wondering how important the second amendment issue will be, once it's incorporated to the states. I know that some politicians will still try to make more restrictive gun laws, however, when they face strict scrutiny, will they be as ready to compete against that in much the same way as say trying to compete with the 1st amendment? And if they are humbled by incorporation, will Brown really be that necessary to ensure our 2A rights aren't trampled. When I look at it from that point of view, I'm rather hesitant to throw my vote to moonbeam.

Going off track for a moment and touching on homosexual marriage, I am absolutely opposed to homosexual marriage because of the doors it opens up. If homosexual marriage is recognized in this state as a "right", I would fully expect homosexual couples to assert their rights and demand clergy, who oppose homosexual marriage, marry them or face legal actions for violating their civil rights.

I've heard people attempt to refute this position as a weak argument, however, I find it highly unlikely that radical homosexuals won't seize on this opportunity to use Christian clergy as an example to make a point. The problem is, until such time as homosexual marriage is legal, they are unable to show their true intent. If homosexual marriage becomes a civil right in this state, then it will be too late. If homosexual couples were to restrict themselves to clergy who would be willing to marry them, I wouldn't be so quick to oppose that kind of union, regardless of how perverted I believe it is. But, I don't believe they will restrict themselves to ELCA Lutheran churches, liberal Episcopalian priests, or for that matter, Unitarians. So, I oppose homosexual marriage because past activities in the homosexual community almost guarantee that Christian clergy will come under fire from homosexuals who will aggressively assert their will against anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.

Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage" and that's how you sound to me.

bulgron
01-26-2010, 5:50 PM
I have a system that has worked well for many years, I learned it up many years ago from Professor Irwin Corey a fellow with whom some of you may be aquainted - although if you don't know Bull Conner you may not know the Prof.

During the previous 10 months of an election cycle I list all the subjects taken from page one and the editorial page and if in a liberal city I assign a factor based on the paper's circulation relative to the population of that city but if in a conservative city I assign a factor based on the number of banks per square mile divide by average family income but of course exlude credit unions as those are run by charlatans allowing me to assign an exact whole number to each subject of 1 to 15 after which I subtract from the states GDP divided by the number of counties in the state excluding Indians not taxed.

Then I vote on guns only. ;)

I'd use this system, if I thought I could get the math right. ;)

JohnJW
01-26-2010, 5:55 PM
In my opinion "gun rights" is a social issue.
For me, the ONLY thing Brown has going for him is his stand on gun rights.
IMO he is a hypocrite when he "promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinion" and then refused to support the law because, in his opinion, "marriage [is] a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation."
He is also, IMO, on the wrong side of "the underground economy" (illegal aliens) and "Global Warming".

Is it illegal for AG to not defend proposition passed by the voter? In my mind, not defending a law against legal challenges is very different from not enforcing the law.

I laugh at the hoopla over "Global Warming" but hey if it means reducing our energy consumption and dependency on foreign energy rich authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, I am all for it.

Base on what I've read Jerry Brown sounds like a pretty good candidate, someone with a real position of his own rather than what he thinks the voters want to hear.

Theseus
01-26-2010, 5:55 PM
So it really all boils down to a definition of a word? I am with bwiese.

Abolish marriage. No such thing. Civil Unions and equal protection for all.

As for thw question about why government is in the business of marriage is because one of the primary functions of government is to provide documents that facilitate trade.

How do you prove you own a car when you present it for sale to someone? Title.

How do you prove you and your partner shared an oath and have legal rights? Certificate of Marriage. That is the only reason, no other.

Mitch
01-26-2010, 5:56 PM
I'd use this system, if I thought I could get the math right. ;)

Set up a spreadsheet. It's how I do my sales taxes.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-26-2010, 6:02 PM
So it really all boils down to a definition of a word? I am with bwiese.

Abolish marriage. No such thing. Civil Unions and equal protection for all.

As for thw question about why government is in the business of marriage is because one of the primary functions of government is to provide documents that facilitate trade.

How do you prove you own a car when you present it for sale to someone? Title.

How do you prove you and your partner shared an oath and have legal rights? Certificate of Marriage. That is the only reason, no other.

The government should concern themselves with the issue of civil rights, not marriage, an issue for the individual churches. If they want to license relationships (yuck, from the libertarian perspective) knock themselves out doing so. BTW, common law spouses don't have paperwork to prove their relationship, but are regarded under the law in most states as a legal relationship with the same honors as "marriage", so IMHO, your argument that the government has a function to facilitate trade (in this case you equate "trade" with "marriage")seems a bit weak.

Centurion_D
01-26-2010, 6:04 PM
With this being a gun forum and all, lets just let the issue of gay rights be debated on calgayrights.net.

Gov. Moonbeam's got my vote. This will be the first Dem I've voted for in many years...

+1...for all us calgunners he's our best choice for gov.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 6:05 PM
That is fine with me Bill. I don’t care who anyone lives with, and I don’t care if it leads to polygamy and bestiality. Those are moral questions the state has no business being involved with. My problem is that I believe that hospital visits and inheritance etc. are red herrings. The real agenda is for vindictive people in that community to use this to punish people they don’t like.


I am a man of my word. I will spend a thousand dollars to make good on a ten cent promise. If you can get the majority, 51% by head count, of gay rights organizations to promise they will not sue or prosecute anyone like wedding photographers and caterers for refusing to provide services to them as a matter of conscience, and put 8 back on the ballot I will vote for it. I don’t think they are willing to do it. I think they want revenge. There are a lot of ways to solve the visitation and inheritance problems.

Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.

GrizzlyGuy
01-26-2010, 6:09 PM
It's amazing how many "gun rights advocates" will cheerfully support all kinds of other ridiculous prohibitions. Many of the arguments against gun control can be used, very effectively, against prohibitions against drugs, prostitution, etc.

Bingo. Over in off-topic, I transformed an anti-pot argument into an anti-gun argument (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3697829&postcount=87) simply by replacing the nouns.

Flintlock Tom made the key point above: Jerry Brown flip-flopped on his Prop 8/gay marriage stance. That means he flip-flopped with regard to a right. How fundamental must a right be before Jerry stops changing his mind about it? Today he believes "Gun ownership is a fundamental right." What will he believe later if he gets elected?

Centurion_D
01-26-2010, 6:13 PM
Is Tom running for Gov.?

Meplat
01-26-2010, 6:18 PM
Those that think this way are not looking enough moves ahead in the chess game. It's over simplistic. It will lead to the state making choices of winners and losers in questions of morality that are none of it's business. We must in the end separate marriage and state altogether.

It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”

JohnJW
01-26-2010, 6:19 PM
I used to be a single issue gun voter. It was even worst when I was 18 when I used to just vote for Republican candidates whenever in doubt. I used to buy into the argument that gun equals freedom, but as I grow older I realize that in a democratic society guns merely offers the illusion of freedom. Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to due process, etc. 2A by itself cannot stand alone, what good can your guns do for you if your government can arbitrarily imprison and torture you without evidence, with the support of the majority.

I've always wonder what would happen had the 442nd turned their gun around and fought for their family's freedom? They certain don't lack the courage. Yet, I am thankful that they were willing to suspend their own "freedom" for the greater good.

So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs. If you are brave enough you will fight on with your bare hands if needed. And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.

bulgron
01-26-2010, 6:21 PM
I don't know why everyone gets all worked up about gay marriage. It's just crazy to care about trivialities like that.

Let me tell you what does get my goat: people who shoot .38s out of their .357s. And sometimes they even mix the cartridges up! :eek:

And why, I ask you, WHY must the .357 co-habitate with .38s. Is it because .38s are special??

.38s working and living with .357s, whatever IS the world coming to?

It's the end of Western Civilization, I'm telling you. THE END OF EVERYTHING! :mad:

:D

Meplat
01-26-2010, 6:22 PM
I'm all for Jerry Brown. He is used to running a California with a much smaller government. He'll do it again. and well too.

I plan on putting together at least one fund raiser for him.

If we can raise $100,000+ for his campaign he can not help but notice us and remember us when in office. Also opens doors for CalGuns Foundation.

If every active member just contributed $10 we could give him a check for over $130,000.

A good investment in my book.

And notice to other politicians that we reward our friends.

CCWFacts
01-26-2010, 6:34 PM
I'm ready to vote for Brown for Governor! He has earned it, with his statements and his Amicus brief.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 6:37 PM
You have my sympathy.

:puke:I used to be a single issue gun voter. It was even worst when I was 18 when I used to just vote for Republican candidates whenever in doubt. I used to buy into the argument that gun equals freedom, but as I grow older I realize that in a democratic society guns merely offers the illusion of freedom. Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to due process, etc. 2A by itself cannot stand alone, what good can your guns do for you if your government can arbitrarily imprison and torture you without evidence, with the support of the majority.

I've always wonder what would happen had the 442nd turned their gun around and fought for their family's freedom? They certain don't lack the courage. Yet, I am thankful that they were willing to suspend their own "freedom" for the greater good.

So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs. If you are brave enough you will fight on with your bare hands if needed. And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.

Meplat
01-26-2010, 6:40 PM
I don't know why everyone gets all worked up about gay marriage. It's just crazy to care about trivialities like that.

Let me tell you what does get my goat: people who shoot .38s out of their .357s. And sometimes they even mix the cartridges up! :eek:

And why, I ask you, WHY must the .357 co-habitate with .38s. Is it because .38s are special??

.38s working and living with .357s, whatever IS the world coming to?

It's the end of Western Civilization, I'm telling you. THE END OF EVERYTHING! :mad:

:D

:rofl2::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 7:00 PM
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage" and that's how you sound to me.

Is that the best you can do?

It's not the same thing, regardless of what people said 50 years ago. Looking at it by today's standards, Christian clergy will marry an interracial couple with no problem, they will refuse to marry a homosexual couple, and that's the argument. Stop trying to replace apples with oranges.

Since this thread is about moonbeam and his support of the second amendment, I'll steer this thread back on track. Since it appears that incorporation will occur before November, how important will moonbeam's election be to gun owners. I think not much when you consider that legislators will have to walk their bill through a gauntlet of scrutiny before they can get the bill passed. Even if they manage to pass the bill, then groups like the NRA, SAF, and CGF will be doing their dead level best to get it overturned.

dfletcher
01-26-2010, 7:11 PM
I'd use this system, if I thought I could get the math right. ;)

No numbers - all sounds. :p

dfletcher
01-26-2010, 7:15 PM
Since this thread is about moonbeam and his support of the second amendment, I'll steer this thread back on track. Since it appears that incorporation will occur before November, how important will moonbeam's election be to gun owners. I think not much when you consider that legislators will have to walk their bill through a gauntlet of scrutiny before they can get the bill passed. Even if they manage to pass the bill, then groups like the NRA, SAF, and CGF will be doing their dead level best to get it overturned.

One aspect to consider electing a Democrat as Governor is - won't he make the Democratic Party in CA stronger and isn't that bad for us? I do plan on voting for Brown, but I'd hate like hell to eventually end up like MA with 35 Democrat State Senators and 4 Republican State Senators, similar set up in the House.

cortayack
01-26-2010, 7:25 PM
I used to be a single issue gun voter. It was even worst when I was 18 when I used to just vote for Republican candidates whenever in doubt. I used to buy into the argument that gun equals freedom, but as I grow older I realize that in a democratic society guns merely offers the illusion of freedom. Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to due process, etc. 2A by itself cannot stand alone, what good can your guns do for you if your government can arbitrarily imprison and torture you without evidence, with the support of the majority.

I've always wonder what would happen had the 442nd turned their gun around and fought for their family's freedom? They certain don't lack the courage. Yet, I am thankful that they were willing to suspend their own "freedom" for the greater good.

So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs. If you are brave enough you will fight on with your bare hands if needed. And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.


Didn't the founding fathers and those who followed them use guns to free themselves. Maybe they should've used their bare knuckles and the British would've threw their guns down and did the same....:rolleyes:


The vote is open to me and no candidate looks good! Only time will tell..

Sgt Raven
01-26-2010, 7:45 PM
Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.

Bingo. ;)

Sutcliffe
01-26-2010, 8:06 PM
As a dem he's going to have to sign or not sign many things that come across his desk. I've always thought of him as a shrewd businessman. His business is to stay employed in the public sector.
It's the economy, economy, economy. If you disregard that fact when elections come around it will bite you on the ***. Is he the kind of upstanding defender of rights and freedoms that will weather that kind of pressure?

dantodd
01-26-2010, 8:13 PM
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage" and that's how you sound to me.

Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."

JohnJW
01-26-2010, 8:18 PM
Didn't the founding fathers and those who followed them use guns to free themselves. Maybe they should've used their bare knuckles and the British would've threw their guns down and did the same....:rolleyes:


The vote is open to me and no candidate looks good! Only time will tell..



I think our founding fathers took up arms and risk everything they have so we don't have to. Of votes, courts, and bullets? Which is the most likely venue for winning and maintaining 2A? Do you have what it takes to stomach an armed revolution in your own backyard? Talk of guns as a mean to win back rights in a democratic society will only cost us votes in elections.

I believe in fighting for 2A rights, but I under no illusion that the guns in my safe are for my enjoyments only and nothing more. Maybe I'm growing old and soft but talk of guns being the ultimate solution to everything doesn't resonate with me anymore.

I am more likely to vote for pro-gun candidates but I don't vote for everyone pro-gun candidates because there is more to life than just guns.

bulgron
01-26-2010, 8:25 PM
I am more likely to vote for pro-gun candidates but I don't vote for everyone pro-gun candidates because there is more to life than just guns.

This is true. However, in California all of the politicians truly suck. When you come right down to it, they're all big-government statists who only want to pass as many laws as possible so that you have no choice but to break a law every now. That way they can throw you in jail if you annoy them.

Since they're all the same, I might as well vote for the ones that look even minimally good for gun rights, because the alternatives are bad too, only they also want to take your guns.

dantodd
01-26-2010, 8:28 PM
Maybe I'm growing old and soft but talk of guns being the ultimate solution to everything doesn't resonate with me anymore.


Guns are not the ultimate solution to all things, however: Guns are the refuge of last resort against an oppressive government.

gvbsat
01-26-2010, 8:37 PM
We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.

But that right there, made me laugh.

On a side note, I for one think individual rights is fundamental. Doesnt matter if you are out on the streets with a white hood one your head exercising your 1st ad right, or exercising it protesting to marry the same sex, or otherwise known as "gay marriage". Doesnt matter, it is all the same, you cant pick and choose what you want out of the constitution. I for one, did vote for prop 8. If you didnt because of YOUR belief, you should read article six of the United States Constitution.

yellowfin
01-26-2010, 8:38 PM
The problem with having guns being too distant a resort is how bad things are allowed to get, almost to the point of having everything that you want to save destroyed first. It's like waiting to start dieting and exercising until after first having a heart attack.

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 8:39 PM
One aspect to consider electing a Democrat as Governor is - won't he make the Democratic Party in CA stronger and isn't that bad for us? I do plan on voting for Brown, but I'd hate like hell to eventually end up like MA with 35 Democrat State Senators and 4 Republican State Senators, similar set up in the House.

I am a staunch Republican, but I'm extremely disappointed with the California Republican party in that a lot of RINO's have infiltrated the party. Unfortunately, the democrats, with the help of the brain dead and socialist sponges that keep electing them, dominate the seats of the California legislature. Since I consider Meg Witman to be as much a RINO as Arnold, I'm in somewhat of a quandary over who exactly to vote for. Witman claims to be fiscally savvy, while Brown shouts long and hard about how pro 2A he is. What could happen for me is to have some third party be fiscally and socially conservative as well as 2A friendly. That candidate I will vote for, win or lose. The alternative would to be just stay home and sit this election cycle out. But I digress.

We've had a majority of dems up to this point, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

MudCamper
01-26-2010, 9:28 PM
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."

Don't forget bestiality marriage! And yes, all of these should be equally legal. I'm not kidding. The point is, wtf does anyone care what other people are doing? Unless you violate another person's right to life, liberty, or property, then it should be legal.

jdberger
01-26-2010, 9:40 PM
We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.

You mean like Mike Bloomberg or Bill Lockyer? Lincoln Chafee?

rabagley
01-26-2010, 10:40 PM
Wow Bill, thanks for the post about Jerry Brown's position on RKBA. Sounds like a rational Democrat. Don't see that too often, and he may get my vote as a result.

Too bad you walked into a giant pissing contest by being consistent and rational about rights.

My little take: If the government grants a benefit or privilege, the government must grant that benefit or privilege to all citizens or people, as appropriate, without restriction or bias. Any other approach makes a travesty of this country and the men who've died to keep it free.

Short form: let them marry, it harms nobody.

Seesm
01-26-2010, 10:45 PM
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.

ALL of our rights are important to ME personally.

But truly in a candidate I just someone who MAKES SENSE some of the time. :)

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 10:49 PM
Wow Bill, thanks for the post about Jerry Brown's position on RKBA. Sounds like a rational Democrat. Don't see that too often, and he may get my vote as a result.

Too bad you walked into a giant pissing contest by being consistent and rational about rights.

My little take: If the government grants a benefit or privilege, the government must grant that benefit or privilege to all citizens or people, as appropriate, without restriction or bias. Any other approach makes a travesty of this country and the men who've died to keep it free.

Short form: let them marry, it harms nobody.

I prefer to tell the government to stay out of religious ceremonies like marriage. If the government wants to grant some kind of civil union to homosexuals with the blessing of the constituents, fine. However, at this time, there is no constitutional right to marry. It's just that simple. What is constitutional is the marriage between a man and a woman. In fact it is the supreme law of the state of California.

rabagley
01-26-2010, 10:57 PM
I prefer to tell the government to stay out of religious ceremonies like marriage. If the government wants to grant some kind of civil union to homosexuals with the blessing of the constituents, fine.

If the government does grant "some kind of civil union" to anyone, it must grant it to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. If the constituents don't like that, then "some kind of civil union" must be granted to nobody. Since the government does grant "some kind of civil union" that happens to be called "marriage"*, it must be granted to all.

Any other outcome must be antithetical to all free men and the free country they represent.

* I do agree that it is confusing that the legal contract of "marriage" recognized by the state has the same name as the religious pairing: "marriage", which is often between a man and a woman. It's a bit of a shame actually, because some individuals keep getting the two things mixed up and pretending that changing the qualifications for one will necessarily change the qualifications for the other. It's obviously nonsense, but the confusion persists.

blkhat1069
01-26-2010, 11:07 PM
I normally don't get involved , BUT, I see a lot of folks on here not getting the whole picture....
I am a registerd Republican, Former Marine, Father, Son, Property owner, Employee, and an @$$hole (Ask my wife).

I cannot understand why folks live or die for a politician or Ideoligy. Every person here should be voting for whomever they wish, who they think is the best for our state, And the best for YOU personally. In-fighting is stupid. and gets Californians nowhere closer to Where all of you want it be.

The California 2 Party system is BROKEN. If you vote for either party in this state you are voting for the same crap we have been dealing with for as long as I can remember.

WE ALL NEED to VOTE and teach others to vote for people with principals and unwavering dedication to The republican form of Government that We are bound to in the Constitution.

Stop voting for STUFF that you might get in return.
Start voting for maximum liberty for everyone, If that means Government gets out of the marriage business GOOD.. ( I have never understood having to pay for a state license to get married in a church)
The Government needs to get out of almost every aspect of our lives, If it is not directly spelled out in the Constitution as the governments job, it is our individual responsibility to do it for ourselves.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ESTABLISH Justice, INSURE domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defence, PROMOTE the general Welfare, and SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Sorry long and rambling, but in my humble opinion the true course
we need to follow.

Theseus
01-26-2010, 11:28 PM
What I don't understand is how allowing people to legally marry allows them the right to sue a church for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony that is against their belief structure?

Religion is supposedly protected, yet a church can deny marrying you because you are not of their faith.

Marital status is, IIRC, protected in many respects, but the church can refuse to marry you because you have been married before.

But this isn't the issue. The issue is legal recognition of a gay marriage that may be performed by a church. If I form a church that marries gay people they should have that marriage recognized by the government and legal system just the same as any other church that provides the same service for hetero sexual couples.

If I was a gay church, could I be sued for not performing ceremonies to heterosexual couples? I seriously think not.

hoffmang
01-26-2010, 11:40 PM
Claiming that forcing the state to accept gay marriage will lead to churches forced to perform ceremonies is like claiming that having a real RKBA will force everyone to buy a gun.

Letting people not like you have an opportunity does not equal them being able to force you to do anything - except grant them the benefits that the state issued license gives you too.

-Gene

blkhat1069
01-26-2010, 11:42 PM
But this isn't the issue. The issue is legal recognition of a gay marriage that may be performed by a church. If I form a church that marries gay people they should have that marriage recognized by the government and legal system just the same as any other church that provides the same service for hetero sexual couples.

If I was a gay church, could I be sued for not performing ceremonies to heterosexual couples? I seriously think not.

That is the reason I voted Yes on 8.
The legal implications of churches being sued.. I can't Sue the LDS for not marrying me in the temple, But if 8 was a no they could have.
Tying up courts and using money in the legal system is part of the PROGRESSIVE agenda to break the US. It isn't about rights it's about ending liberty.

Easy solution the government doesn't see marriage as anything. You sign a legal contract that states your intentions for legal purposes.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but isn't a marriage (legally) an incorporation of assets?

No tax benefit from filling as married. (I think we should abolish income tax filings and go to a straight consumption tax).

Roadrunner
01-26-2010, 11:47 PM
If the government does grant "some kind of civil union" to anyone, it must grant it to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. If the constituents don't like that, then "some kind of civil union" must be granted to nobody. Since the government does grant "some kind of civil union" that happens to be called "marriage"*, it must be granted to all.

Any other outcome must be antithetical to all free men and the free country they represent.

* I do agree that it is confusing that the legal contract of "marriage" recognized by the state has the same name as the religious pairing: "marriage", which is often between a man and a woman. It's a bit of a shame actually, because some individuals keep getting the two things mixed up and pretending that changing the qualifications for one will necessarily change the qualifications for the other. It's obviously nonsense, but the confusion persists.

What I don't understand is how allowing people to legally marry allows them the right to sue a church for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony that is against their belief structure?

Religion is supposedly protected, yet a church can deny marrying you because you are not of their faith.

Marital status is, IIRC, protected in many respects, but the church can refuse to marry you because you have been married before.

But this isn't the issue. The issue is legal recognition of a gay marriage that may be performed by a church. If I form a church that marries gay people they should have that marriage recognized by the government and legal system just the same as any other church that provides the same service for hetero sexual couples.

If I was a gay church, could I be sued for not performing ceremonies to heterosexual couples? I seriously think not.

Rabagley said it himself, if it's a right then everybody is "entitled" to one or no body gets one. It goes the same for clergy who perform marriages. If a homosexual couple wants to get married, and a pastor refuses to marry them, they will sue him for violating their civil rights. Remember what Rabagley said; it's all or none. Because of attitudes like Rabagley, I will fight tooth and nail against homosexual marriage.

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 12:19 AM
It goes the same for clergy who perform marriages. If a homosexual couple wants to get married, and a pastor refuses to marry them, they will sue him for violating their civil rights.

And that gay couple will lose the case. Those cases have already been brought and the gay couples lost them because the state can't compel churches to do much of anything.

-Gene

Theseus
01-27-2010, 12:23 AM
That is the reason I voted Yes on 8.
The legal implications of churches being sued.. I can't Sue the LDS for not marrying me in the temple, But if 8 was a no they could have.
Tying up courts and using money in the legal system is part of the PROGRESSIVE agenda to break the US. It isn't about rights it's about ending liberty.

Easy solution the government doesn't see marriage as anything. You sign a legal contract that states your intentions for legal purposes.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but isn't a marriage (legally) an incorporation of assets?

No tax benefit from filling as married. (I think we should abolish income tax filings and go to a straight consumption tax).

Where did this idea come from? If proposition 8 never made it to the ballot box we would have been exactly in the same situation so how is it that prop 8 would cause this to happen?

Mstrty
01-27-2010, 12:26 AM
I am still having trouble swallowing JB as a standup Pro-Gun Guy. I have read the letter sent to Congress regarding his wish for incorporation on the 2nd. Remember Harry Reid voting for Nationwide CCW only after he knew it couldnt pass in an attempt to hold onto NV 2A voters. JB ran a Anti-gun AG campaign. His own campaign manager said this and I quote

"Dear Supporter,

Jerry’s opponent, Fresno State Senator Charles Poochigian was not willing to ban 50 Caliber BMG Sniper Rifles. These 4˝ foot-long weapons fire one of the world's largest bullets--bullets that can penetrate 3˝ inches of raw steel. Click here to watch the campaign ad exposing Poochigian’s indefensible position:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/viewingroom/

And don’t forget to tell the LA Times what you think about Chuck Poochigian and this ad.

Thank You,

Anne Brown
Campaign Manager
Jerry Brown for Attorney General"

I found this info Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=39808&highlight=jerry)
I just cant get myself to sip on the kool-aid. I think he will win and that frightens me more than it makes me feel warm and fuzzy. (I smell a trojan horse).
OK let the insults fly.:D I can take it!

JohnJW
01-27-2010, 12:30 AM
Rabagley said it himself, if it's a right then everybody is "entitled" to one or no body gets one. It goes the same for clergy who perform marriages. If a homosexual couple wants to get married, and a pastor refuses to marry them, they will sue him for violating their civil rights. Remember what Rabagley said; it's all or none. Because of attitudes like Rabagley, I will fight tooth and nail against homosexual marriage.

Can a mormon couple walk into a catholic church and demand the catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony, and sue on civil rights ground if refused? What about non-mormons demanding to be have the mormon marriage ceremony performed? The "protect the church from lawsuit happy gay couples" argument are just red herrings. 1A's been around for a long time and I don't see different religions suing each other for civil rights violation demanding other people's god conform to their god.

blkhat1069
01-27-2010, 12:31 AM
Where did this idea come from? If proposition 8 never made it to the ballot box we would have been exactly in the same situation so how is it that prop 8 would cause this to happen?

The Courts forced the issue by legalizing gay marriage in the state. Legislating from the bench, advocate judges forced a law idea and the voters rejected it.

The legislature has the job of making laws not the courts. The legislature or the people should have just gotten the State out of the marriage business. And marriage wouldn't be differnt than any other contract, Done and Done.

I personally feel if the Court would have stayed out of it, we would have legal gay Marriage. But they didn't and we are here now and paying the price with tax dollars.

bwiese
01-27-2010, 12:35 AM
I am still having trouble swallowing JB as a standup Pro-Gun Guy. IJB ran a Anti-gun AG campaign. His own campaign manager said this and I quote

"Dear Supporter,

Jerry’s opponent, Fresno State Senator Charles Poochigian was not willing to ban 50 Caliber BMG Sniper Rifles.

This actually wasn't JBs fault. No kiddin'.

Chuck Poochigian idiotically raised an inflammatory issue. He was warned not to by Various Sources and yet still did. He threw JB an interception.

Theseus
01-27-2010, 12:35 AM
The Courts forced the issue by legalizing gay marriage in the state. Legislating from the bench, advocate judges forced a law idea and the voters rejected it.

The legislature has the job of making laws not the courts. The legislature or the people should have just gotten the State out of the marriage business. And marriage wouldn't be differnt than any other contract, Done and Done.

I personally feel if the Court would have stayed out of it, we would have legal gay Marriage. But they didn't and we are here now and paying the price with tax dollars.

The court is bound by the rule of law this republic was founded on. Equal protection of minorities against majorities. The court, in this case, did its job. Denying a person the same rights permitted to someone else is unconstitutional.

blkhat1069
01-27-2010, 12:40 AM
The court is bound by the rule of law this republic was founded on. Equal protection of minorities against majorities. The court, in this case, did its job. Denying a person the same rights permitted to someone else is unconstitutional.

Where does the Kalifornia law say you have a right to get married?
You don't have the right to drive, You get a license and the privilege.

Wouldn't marriage be the same you apply for a license and are given the privilege to marry
The courts made it a right and the people legislated who has the right. Right or Wrong. Blame the legislation if you want.

End marriage in the state of Kalifornia make them civil unions for every body and give no one special privilege from being marred.

Mstrty
01-27-2010, 12:49 AM
This actually wasn't JBs fault. No kiddin'.

Chuck Poochigian idiotically raised an inflammatory issue. He was warned not to by Various Sources and yet still did. He threw JB an interception.

Thanks I will continue to keep up my guard against this guy. What other Progun history do we have to go on other than this letter to incorporate. (Which by the way threw me for a loop.) I want to know I am voting for the guy which stands for my values the most. 2A is a big chunk of my vote.

dantodd
01-27-2010, 1:00 AM
Where does the Kalifornia law say you have a right to get married?
You don't have the right to drive, You get a license and the privilege.


Good example... do you think they could legally prevent gay people from getting a driver's license?

blkhat1069
01-27-2010, 1:35 AM
Good example... do you think they could legally prevent gay people from getting a driver's license?

EXACTLY ! IT IS NOT A RIGHT!! and the GOVERNMENT shouldn't be making up rights for or against it... MAXIMUM LIBERTY.

If it doesn't infringe on anyone and won't cost the STATE (ie you and me) money to prosecute or cost people money to defend their choice to accept or not accept, I'm all for it.

But it is your choice to accept it or not, not the Governments place to force you not to be a bigot, or to make another victim class of people to push a progressive agenda.

Just like it is not the Governments job to make laws against having anal sex with strange women in the privacy of your own home. (THREAD COMPLETE :-))

Gray Peterson
01-27-2010, 1:41 AM
Ya know, I find it hilarious that somehow that gay couples will somehow force churches to marry them when people of a different religious faith can't force them to do it either.

The Moral and Constitutional Case for Gay Marriage by Robert Levy (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112). Robert Levy was the man who funded the Parker case.

And by the person who is representing the Perry plaintiffs to strike down Prop 8, The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage By Ted Olson (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957)

To the person who said he worked with gays who wanted to "punish the church" in the mid 1980's who then worked on No on Eight: I wholeheartedly believe that you're either a liar or embellishing. Gays at that point were being decimated by HIV, and a very large majority of out gays at the time thought of marriage as an anachronistic social construct. The out gays as a general rule attacked the plaintiffs in the 1970's cases like Baker v. Nelson as wanting something anachronistic.

Note that I said "out gays". Significant oppression using criminal laws still existed at that point in the 1980's, so being "out" meant significant amounts of both official oppression and unofficial violence and murder. I myself am almost 30 years of age. During that era, I was 3-4 years old. Those people of that era do not speak for me. I am perfectly happy for having my religious leader be able to sign a marriage license for me, a sect which is perfectly OK with me getting legally married. Why in the living hell would I want to get married in a place that doesn't want to bless it? No church chapel is going to be forced to marry people they don't want to. If the NAACP can't force a Christian Identity Church to do interracial marriages or marriages between blacks, what makes you think HRC can do this for gay couples?

Sutcliffe
01-27-2010, 2:58 AM
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."


Are you equating homosexuality with behaviors that are felonies? Doesn't exactly seem all that fair of a comparison to me.

GrizzlyGuy
01-27-2010, 5:59 AM
Ya know, I find it hilarious that somehow that gay couples will somehow force churches to marry them when people of a different religious faith can't force them to do it either.

The Moral and Constitutional Case for Gay Marriage by Robert Levy (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112). Robert Levy was the man who funded the Parker case.

Great reference, Gray. From the article:

For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts — consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.

The key is what I bolded: government should have NO involvement in marriage. No marriage licenses, no divorce laws, no tax benefits or penalties for married people, etc.

The government should treat everyone as individuals, and those individuals should be free to form whatever type of private relationships they like, including polygamous relationships. Private contracts that the individuals may choose to put in place would have a 'Term and Termination' clause and related clauses that would define what happens should the relationship end (in place of the government dictating what happens via divorce laws).

If the government had NO involvement in marriage, there would be no need for Prop 8 challenges as the playing field would be level for all. This part of our Pledge of Allegiance would be fulfilled: "with liberty and justice for all".

NeuTag
01-27-2010, 6:02 AM
AP article on Jerry Brown: "Gun ownership is a fundamental right." Nuff said....

keep it simple....I cleared the usenet jokers out in one month with the KISS attitude. KISS= keep it simple sucker\

I'M TENNATIVE

Mulay El Raisuli
01-27-2010, 7:04 AM
That's a lotta Chins.


More that are in the Hong Kong phone book? :)


Anyway, to (foolishly) feed the off-topic stuff, whoever equated gay marriage to polygamous & incestuous marriages has a point. If there's a Right to one, there isn't a good argument as to why there shouldn't be a Right to the others as well. The complaint that 2 of them are (at present) felonious doesn't invalidate the argument. The difference relates only to how illegal they are, not that they are all illegal. IOW, IF gay marriage is legalized, there doesn't remain any good argument to keep the other 2 choices illegal (much less felonies) either.

Something else being ignored in all of this. Societies have the right to ban practices that harm that society. So, the question must be asked; is ANY non-traditional marriage a benefit to society? I.E. Is society in general helped or harmed by gay marriage? I'm seeing nothing on that aspect. Also, given that the logic that allows gay marriage would also allow polygamous & incestuous marriages, the same question must be asked about those as well.

As for "will churches be forced to marry gays?" The answer is no. BUT (and this is a big butt) churches aren't the only players in the game. There was a wedding photographer in Inyo County (IIRC) who was sued because he refused to participate in a gay wedding. The 1A doesn't apply to him. The 1A doesn't apply to caterers or all the other people ancillary to weddings either. They WOULD be forced to participate. This would be the case for polygamous & incestuous marriages as well. Sooner or later.


But, to return to the actual subject of the thread, Jerry Brown has actually committed an act that enhances & strengthens the RKBA; he filed that amicus Brief. That's a lot more than any other candidate has done. More than any RINO has done. Unless a candidate appears that can match or exceed that, I'll be voting for JB.

Which leads to repeat a question I asked elsewhere; when do I have to register as a Dem so that I can vote for him in the primary? I don't want to be a Dem (even if in name only) for any longer than I have to, & I'll switch back to the GOP afterward, but I do want to vote for him just as early (and as often!) as I can.


The Raisuli

Mitch
01-27-2010, 7:21 AM
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."

Done! What do I win?

BTW, polygamous and incestuous marriages are the oldest forms of marriage. Polygamy is still widely practiced in much of the world. Never understood why people get so worked up about it.

AlexDD
01-27-2010, 7:25 AM
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but isn't a marriage (legally) an incorporation of assets?



Just get divorced and see ...

JohnJW
01-27-2010, 7:40 AM
Which leads to repeat a question I asked elsewhere; when do I have to register as a Dem so that I can vote for him in the primary? I don't want to be a Dem (even if in name only) for any longer than I have to, & I'll switch back to the GOP afterward, but I do want to vote for him just as early (and as often!) as I can.


Seeing how the socially conservative Republicans get worked up over RINOs, maybe the DINOs will have the same effect on the fiscal liberal Democrats. Maybe we should all rotate our party registration every few years since most of us think all politicians are the same regardless of party affiliation. . . . probably a lot more fun than registering as independents.

I hope this won't backfire into a socially conservative fiscally liberal administration of the last decade. . . .

blkhat1069
01-27-2010, 8:22 AM
Just get divorced and see ...

I didn't say equal incorporation, But that is a fight for a later date.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 8:38 AM
And that gay couple will lose the case. Those cases have already been brought and the gay couples lost them because the state can't compel churches to do much of anything.

-Gene

Can a mormon couple walk into a catholic church and demand the catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony, and sue on civil rights ground if refused? What about non-mormons demanding to be have the mormon marriage ceremony performed? The "protect the church from lawsuit happy gay couples" argument are just red herrings. 1A's been around for a long time and I don't see different religions suing each other for civil rights violation demanding other people's god conform to their god.

Incrementalism is a powerful tool to achieve change, you guys use it all the time. It's the same in this case. The only reason homosexuals haven't been successful is because marriage is not recognized as a fundamental right, however, if it ever does shift in that direction, you will see suits being filed against clergy that either force them to not marry anyone, or they relent and marry everyone who comes to them. As for the 1A allowing religions to freely operate unimpeded, an extreme example of not allowing religions to freely operate would be the case of a religion that uses human sacrifice to worship their god. In other words, if someone believed that Molech was a real god, and made an idol to sacrifice children in his arms, I think the state would put a stop to that very quick. In the case of Mormons asking to get married in a catholic church, please show me a Mormon couple who successfully did that without incurring the disdain of the bishop in their ward, or the president of their stake? In any case, if marriage is redefined and made a fundamental right, a Mormon couple who for whatever reason wanted to get married in a catholic church, would have that right; that I have no doubt. And the same goes for homosexual couples.

Liberty1
01-27-2010, 8:46 AM
Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.

^This

Why did I have to pay a tax and get a license to marry my wife? Let the state recognize the contract between individuals and let my church marry us.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 8:50 AM
Good example... do you think they could legally prevent gay people from getting a driver's license?

Sure. I believe the law makes chronic drunks, drug addicts, and people with certain disabilities ineligible to drive. If someone is dinged for drunk driving, they lose their license. If someone refuses to take a drunk test, they can have their license taken away. And, I believe, if you do enough things that make you a hazard on the road, they will permanently revoke your drivers license. If the person happens to be homosexual, they could have their license taken as well.

bulgron
01-27-2010, 8:54 AM
Incrementalism is a powerful tool to achieve change, you guys use it all the time. It's the same in this case. The only reason homosexuals haven't been successful is because marriage is not recognized as a fundamental right, however, if it ever does shift in that direction, you will see suits being filed against clergy that either force them to not marry anyone, or they relent and marry everyone who comes to them. As for the 1A allowing religions to freely operate unimpeded, an extreme example of not allowing religions to freely operate would be the case of a religion that uses human sacrifice to worship their god. In other words, if someone believed that Molech was a real god, and made an idol to sacrifice children in his arms, I think the state would put a stop to that very quick. In the case of Mormons asking to get married in a catholic church, please show me a Mormon couple who successfully did that without incurring the disdain of the bishop in their ward, or the president of their stake? In any case, if marriage is redefined and made a fundamental right, a Mormon couple who for whatever reason wanted to get married in a catholic church, would have that right; that I have no doubt. And the same goes for homosexual couples.

No way.

The state can interfere when the exercise of one person's right outright harms another person. e.g. My right to swing my arms ends at the tip of your nose. But barring real damage to another person, the state has no power to interfere with the exercise of your rights.

In the case of Molech, human sacrifice represents real harm to the sacrificee as well as to the stability of the community ('cause you KNOW there'd be payback if someone started sacrificing children).

But in the case of the Catholic Church refusing to marry gays, no real harm is done to gays, even if marriage is found to be a fundamental right. At best, the offense gays may feel at not being allowed to marry in a Catholic Church is equal to the offense Catholics might feel if they were forced to marry gays in their church. If this issue were pushed to it's extreme, someone somewhere is going to be offended.

But nowhere is it written that the people have a right to not be offended. At the same time, private property rights would kick into effect. I mean, to return to gun right for a moment, I might have the right to bear arms in public, but a grocery store can tell me that they don't want me carrying a gun on their property. Guess who wins under those circumstances.

At the end of the day, the courts would almost certainly refuse to require a religion to go against it's own teachings. This is especially true when the relief for the gay community is easily obtained; simply start your own church and perform your own marriages.

All this stuff about gays forcing churches to marry them is just fear-mongering. Some few might try, but there's no chance that they would succeed.

bulgron
01-27-2010, 8:56 AM
^This

Why did I have to pay a tax and get a license to marry my wife? Let the state recognize the contract between individuals and let my church marry us.

My understanding is that the states generally weren't in the business of marriage licenses until shortly after the civil war. Apparently they wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites.

Marriage licenses have always been about control and bigotry. I, for one, would like to see them swept into the dustbin of history.

I agree; the state should only recognize civil unions. Let marriage be about the churches and only the churches, if someone wants to go down that road.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 9:11 AM
No way.

The state can interfere when the exercise of one person's right outright harms another person. e.g. My right to swing my arms ends at the tip of your nose. But barring real damage to another person, the state has no power to interfere with the exercise of your rights.

In the case of Molech, human sacrifice represents real harm to the sacrificee as well as to the stability of the community ('cause you KNOW there'd be payback if someone started sacrificing children).

But in the case of the Catholic Church refusing to marry gays, no real harm is done to gays, even if marriage is found to be a fundamental right. At best, the offense gays may feel at not being allowed to marry in a Catholic Church is equal to the offense Catholics might feel if they were forced to marry gays in their church. If this issue were pushed to it's extreme, someone somewhere is going to be offended.

But nowhere is it written that the people have a right to not be offended. At the same time, private property rights would kick into effect. I mean, to return to gun right for a moment, I might have the right to bear arms in public, but a grocery store can tell me that they don't want me carrying a gun on their property. Guess who wins under those circumstances.

At the end of the day, the courts would almost certainly refuse to require a religion to go against it's own teachings. This is especially true when the relief for the gay community is easily obtained; simply start your own church and perform your own marriages.

All this stuff about gays forcing churches to marry them is just fear-mongering. Some few might try, but there's no chance that they would succeed.

And yet states have enacted laws protecting employees from being fired, who keep their guns in the trunk of their cars on company property. I have no problem with that, but I can see a liberal state like California, or some senator like Barney Frank at the right time introducing a bill that says that it is bigotry and therefore a crime against social justice for a clergyman to refuse to marry a homosexual couple. I would also assert that there are people, not clergy, who are opposed to homosexual marriage. Yet, if it's permitted, these people would be forced to recognize the marriage. That means, employers, insurance companies, or even hospitals who are faith based would be forced to recognize a homosexual couples marital status against their beliefs.

bulgron
01-27-2010, 9:19 AM
And yet states have enacted laws protecting employees from being fired, who keep their guns in the trunk of their cars on company property. I have no problem with that, but I can see a liberal state like California, or some senator like Barney Frank at the right time introducing a bill that says that it is bigotry and therefore a crime against social justice for a clergyman to refuse to marry a homosexual couple. I would also assert that there are people, not clergy, who are opposed to homosexual marriage. Yet, if it's permitted, these people would be forced to recognize the marriage. That means, employers, insurance companies, or even hospitals who are faith based would be forced to recognize a homosexual couples marital status against their beliefs.

All of which argues that the state has no business recognizing marriages of any kind. They should recognize civil unions only, and at that only because legal issues of custody, transfer of wealth, visitation rights, etc, are involved.

PatriotnMore
01-27-2010, 9:28 AM
Exactly. A marriage are between two people and God(edit: the higher power worshiped), not the State or the Federal government. There is a cry for separation of church and state right up to where someone benefits by including the state.



All of which argues that the state has no business recognizing marriages of any kind. They should recognize civil unions only, and at that only because legal issues of custody, transfer of wealth, visitation rights, etc, are involved.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 9:36 AM
All of which argues that the state has no business recognizing marriages of any kind. They should recognize civil unions only, and at that only because legal issues of custody, transfer of wealth, visitation rights, etc, are involved.

Actually, I have no problem with that. I would agree that, the church that does the ceremony, also issue the certificate of marriage. This certificate, for the purpose of keeping records and for legal purposes, could be recorded at the county hall of records as a main repository in the event that the husband and wife lose the certificate. If the state wants to conduct a civil union, because the couple are atheists, or, with the approval of the citizen's of the state, recognize homosexual marriages, then that's fine, so long as the state protects a churches and clergyman's 1A right against being forced to marry a homosexual couple.

DTOM CA!
01-27-2010, 9:46 AM
JB has not convinced me of anything. While the 2A is very important the economy is at the top of the list. With the Democrats in control of everything in CA they will be able to ram through all the tax increases and other schemes through which could send California into bankruptcy. I feel that all the politicians in office currently are part of the problem because they have not been part of the solution. For example CA has 12% of the U.S. population but has 36% of the U.S. welfare recipients. That is more then the next 10 states combined. We have over 15 thousand illegal immigrants in CA Jails.
As far as Gay Marriage goes why can't it be a Civil Union with the same rights as regular Marriage ? Elton John is okay with that. IMO it is because it is a never ending agenda. When they legalize Marriage then it is time to work on getting it taught to kids in school. Then sex education and so on. If you take some ground beef and flatten it then it is hamburger or roll it into a ball then it is a meatball. They are both similar but you do not call one the other.

sholling
01-27-2010, 10:08 AM
All of which argues that the state has no business recognizing marriages of any kind. They should recognize civil unions only, and at that only because legal issues of custody, transfer of wealth, visitation rights, etc, are involved.
This is exactly what I have been saying for years. Get the state out of the marriage business. The state should recognize civil unions only and enforce them as contract law based on mandatory and binding prenuptial agreements that the couples work out for themselves. That get's the government out of deciding what flavor of marriage is "holy enough". Leave that stuff to the churches.

Gray Peterson
01-27-2010, 10:09 AM
Actually, I have no problem with that. I would agree that, the church that does the ceremony, also issue the certificate of marriage. This certificate, for the purpose of keeping records and for legal purposes, could be recorded at the county hall of records as a main repository in the event that the husband and wife lose the certificate. If the state wants to conduct a civil union, because the couple are atheists, or, with the approval of the citizen's of the state, recognize homosexual marriages, then that's fine, so long as the state protects a churches and clergyman's 1A right against being forced to marry a homosexual couple.

It already is, by the 1st amendment. You can't cite to me a situation (in the United States) where a religious clergyman was forced to marry a couple against their religious tenants. Every legal conflict I've ever seen on that issue has been situations like Justices of the Peace (these are appointed positions of the state, and are bound by other anti-discrimination laws that already apply to religion and racial issues, and as a general rule is not allowed to refuse to marry ANYONE unless they don't qualify under state law), or renting out a Gazebo at a boardwalk that a church happens to run for profit (Ocean County Camp Meeting Association case).

Also, atheists can get marriage licenses. So can imprisoned lifer criminals, the sterile, and the elderly.

To paraphrase Standing Wolf from the THR, "If it wasn't for LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and deliberate misrepresentations and falsely created statistics, the anti-gunners would only have their own bigotry against gun owners as a justification for their hatred". I see the similarities. Do any of you?

davescz
01-27-2010, 10:41 AM
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.

on social issues, i dont see anything meg is doing right. she is anti-gun, has said nothing about her fix for education, (my guess is she will dump more money to the treachers unions) is pro-death/anit-life, she is worthless. at least brown has the gun thing right.

bulgron
01-27-2010, 10:47 AM
Actually, I have no problem with that. I would agree that, the church that does the ceremony, also issue the certificate of marriage. This certificate, for the purpose of keeping records and for legal purposes, could be recorded at the county hall of records as a main repository in the event that the husband and wife lose the certificate. If the state wants to conduct a civil union, because the couple are atheists, or, with the approval of the citizen's of the state, recognize homosexual marriages, then that's fine, so long as the state protects a churches and clergyman's 1A right against being forced to marry a homosexual couple.

No. A marriage conducted by a church should have no meaning in the eyes of the state. If the couple wants the legal benefits that come from a state-recognized union, they should go to the state and enter into a civil union. If the couple also wants to be married in the eyes of the church, they should then go to the church who will perform whatever ceremony the church deems appropriate.

In other words, any one of the following states should be possible:

- Married by a church, but no civil union benefits from the state.
- Not married by a church, but have civil union benefits from the state.
- Married by a church, and have civil union benefits from the state.
- Not married by a church and no civil union benefits.

The civil union benefits should be blind regarding the number of people involved (so long as there are at least two), and their sex.

I also argue that there should be no income tax benefits derived from existing in a civil union, or not existing in a civil union, because these are inherently unfair. But that's a separate discussion.

The state should stay out of church business, and churchs' should stay out of the state's business.

It's the only way to maximize personal liberty. Personal liberty is, after all, the main goal, is it not?

IGOTDIRT4U
01-27-2010, 11:02 AM
Claiming that forcing the state to accept gay marriage will lead to churches forced to perform ceremonies is like claiming that having a real RKBA will force everyone to buy a gun.

Letting people not like you have an opportunity does not equal them being able to force you to do anything - except grant them the benefits that the state issued license gives you too.

-Gene

I could add that suits or scenarios of forcing the church to do things against their will has not occurred in the few states that have already legalized gay marraige. Albeit, CA is a strange beast, and I would not count out the possibility of someone filing a suit. I'm sure someone out there has even tried to swallow a bowling ball whole, in CA.

madmike
01-27-2010, 11:33 AM
Irrelevant argument.

Nobody 'owns' the definition of marriage. And the government can define legal terms - look at the definition of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip' etc.

If that's not your definition of marriage, don't go marry someone of your same sex. Problem solved.

You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation.


You have not identified any harm to anyone except to your hurt feelings. And indeed you are proscribing morality if you support that.



What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.


Although I tend to agree with you here, it would be very tempting to vote to deny voting rights to people who wear Birkenstocks... I'm not saying I would, just that I'd be tempted.


-madmike.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 12:13 PM
No. A marriage conducted by a church should have no meaning in the eyes of the state. If the couple wants the legal benefits that come from a state-recognized union, they should go to the state and enter into a civil union. If the couple also wants to be married in the eyes of the church, they should then go to the church who will perform whatever ceremony the church deems appropriate.

In other words, any one of the following states should be possible:

- Married by a church, but no civil union benefits from the state.
- Not married by a church, but have civil union benefits from the state.
- Married by a church, and have civil union benefits from the state.
- Not married by a church and no civil union benefits.

The civil union benefits should be blind regarding the number of people involved (so long as there are at least two), and their sex.

I also argue that there should be no income tax benefits derived from existing in a civil union, or not existing in a civil union, because these are inherently unfair. But that's a separate discussion.

The state should stay out of church business, and churchs' should stay out of the state's business.

It's the only way to maximize personal liberty. Personal liberty is, after all, the main goal, is it not?

Then your position discriminates against a couple who chooses to marry in their church rather than in a civil union, and that's unacceptable. What you're suggesting is the couple has to have two, for all intents and purposes, ceremonies performed so that homosexuals can have their civil union. Absolutely not. The state is not involving itself in the affairs of a church marriage by the church issuing the certificate of marriage. The state is merely recording the marriage for historical and legal purposes. Your suggestion is unreasonable, and attempts to relegate a church marriage to a meaningless exercise. Which means that a man and a woman are not married until the state recognizes it through a civil union. That also means that unless a couple subject themselves to a civil ceremony, they cannot obtain insurance or the benefits of marriage. This makes it worse for a man and a woman to marry.

As for California recognizing marriage, I suspect that someday it may happen, but it is not today. And for the time being, I don't see it happening in the near future. So, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this futile exercise.

bwiese
01-27-2010, 12:18 PM
Although I tend to agree with you here, it would be very tempting to vote to deny voting rights to people who wear Birkenstocks... I'm not saying I would, just that I'd be tempted.


Exactly; I'm an Allen-Edmondsist ;)

dantodd
01-27-2010, 12:34 PM
Damn you all. I wear Birk's almost every day, rain or shine.

bulgron
01-27-2010, 12:50 PM
Then your position discriminates against a couple who chooses to marry in their church rather than in a civil union, and that's unacceptable. What you're suggesting is the couple has to have two, for all intents and purposes, ceremonies performed so that homosexuals can have their civil union. Absolutely not.

Two ceremonies? No. A civil union should be nothing more than a contract that you sign.

Hey, for all I care, make sure your priest/pastor is enough of a lawyer that he can draw up the legal papers. Sign them at the reception, or whatever.

Uxi
01-27-2010, 1:34 PM
I detest way too much of JB's economic and social policy to let his favorable gun positions influence me to vote for him.

madmike
01-27-2010, 1:44 PM
Exactly; I'm an Allen-Edmondsist ;)

LOL

But back to the original topic(I think?), the reason to vote guns first, is because the 2A is the LAST line of defense, and you have to set that up FIRST. When it's secure, you move on to your other defenses working outward to the edge of your position.
That gate with the no trespassing sign doesn't do much good if it gets kicked in and you're just standing there with you dick in your hand, and a smile on your face. You should have built a good solid house, before you started on the fence...

-madmike.

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 1:45 PM
I detest way too much of JB's economic and social policy to let his favorable gun positions influence me to vote for him.

His social and economic policies are more libertarian/fiscal conservative than the "conservative" GOP candidates.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 2:33 PM
Sure. I believe the law makes chronic drunks, drug addicts, and people with certain disabilities ineligible to drive. If someone is dinged for drunk driving, they lose their license. If someone refuses to take a drunk test, they can have their license taken away. And, I believe, if you do enough things that make you a hazard on the road, they will permanently revoke your drivers license. If the person happens to be homosexual, they could have their license taken as well.

We have an inalienable, fundamental liberty in the right to drive. The fact that government requires that people get a drivers license to prove they are safe drivers before they are permitted to operate a vehicle on the road does not negate the fact that individuals have an inalienable, fundamental liberty interest in the right to travel. ALL RIGHTS are subject to reasonable regulation for the equal protection and security of all.

We have an inalienable liberty interest which includes the fundamental right to marry. Our right to marry may be regulated in part, but not completely denied.

When the government seeks to regulate the inalienable right to liberty which includes the fundamental right to marry, the government must articulate a compelling interest. They have not.

Theseus
01-27-2010, 2:48 PM
Where does the Kalifornia law say you have a right to get married?
You don't have the right to drive, You get a license and the privilege.

Wouldn't marriage be the same you apply for a license and are given the privilege to marry
The courts made it a right and the people legislated who has the right. Right or Wrong. Blame the legislation if you want.

End marriage in the state of Kalifornia make them civil unions for every body and give no one special privilege from being marred.

You make the mistake or believing that just because a right isn't mentioned it doesn't exists.

But I don't see how this really is an answer to my question. Where did the idea that making marriage a right would allow people legal standing to sue churches that refuse to marry gay couples?

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 3:11 PM
The only reason homosexuals haven't been successful is because marriage is not recognized as a fundamental right, however, if it ever does shift in that direction, you will see suits being filed against clergy that either force them to not marry anyone, or they relent and marry everyone who comes to them.

Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT according to what the US Supreme Court decided in Loving v Virginia. You cannot give that right to some but not to all. All Americans should be given the same rights without interference.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 3:12 PM
Anyway, to (foolishly) feed the off-topic stuff, whoever equated gay marriage to polygamous & incestuous marriages has a point. If there's a Right to one, there isn't a good argument as to why there shouldn't be a Right to the others as well. The complaint that 2 of them are (at present) felonious doesn't invalidate the argument. The difference relates only to how illegal they are, not that they are all illegal. IOW, IF gay marriage is legalized, there doesn't remain any good argument to keep the other 2 choices illegal (much less felonies) either.

With respect to polygamy, there are good reasons why polygamy is fundamentally different than a 2-person marriage -- namely, the division of stuff. If person A marries person B, then marries person C, what happens when person A dies (or seeks divorce)? Does person B have to divorce person C? What is the remaining relationship between B and C? What if A wants to divorce B but not C, but C wants to remain with both A and B? If person A is allowed to marry both B and C, couldn't person B marry person D as well? If B dies, how do A and C and D divvy up B's stuff? And what happens if D is married as well to E? If A and B had a kid together, and B dies, does C have any rights or responsibilities with respect to the kid? How does one file their taxes? This level of complexity just isn't there with any sort of 2-person marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

To allow polygamous marriage would require a wholesale rewrite of not only marriage and divorce law, but also the law of trusts and estates, as well as who knows however many other laws. It's not just one more small step beyond homosexual marriage, which only requires a change in the definition of the term.

With respect to incestuous relationships, if both parties are adults, able to and willing to fully articulate their desires and consent to the marriage, there really isn't any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, even under current laws. However, most of the incestuous relationships that have been written about usual involve a disparate power relationship -- a parent and child, or a dominant sibling and a submissive sibling. When you have such a disparate power position, it's hard to say whether the weaker side is actually consenting to the relationship. So this falls under the same rules that make it tough or impossible for an adult to marry a minor in many cases, due to the disparate ability to control the relationship or the lack of ability to consent to such a relationship. And similar rules that prohibit relationships in some cases between doctors and patients, and therapists and patients. Since the expectation is that most of these relationships are likely not fully consensual, it makes some sense to simply ban them all rather than try to parse out the few that are legit. Presumably if there is enough interest in fully consensual incestuous relationships, these people can try to get the laws against them overturned as well. But again, it wouldn't be an automatic "next step."

With respect to bestiality (I know, not brought up here, but brought up elsewhere), we are not talking about two or more persons, so it's really not relevant at all to the conversation. Only persons have the ability to consent to such a relationship.

I guess with recent SCOTUS rulings, though, the question might be raised as to whether someone could marry a corporation, since corporations have many of the rights of a person...

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 3:17 PM
I prefer to tell the government to stay out of religious ceremonies like marriage. If the government wants to grant some kind of civil union to homosexuals with the blessing of the constituents, fine. However, at this time, there is no constitutional right to marry. It's just that simple. What is constitutional is the marriage between a man and a woman. In fact it is the supreme law of the state of California.

Your claim that marriage is not a government institution is patently false. Marriage is a contract with the state. Ministers are permitted, in this country, to perform legally binding ceremonies as a courtesy. Still, though, the couple marrying must have a license from the state. Marriage as it's considered today has NOTHING to do with religion. Do you realize that marriages were contracts that were entered into like a business? Marriage changed from a custom to a legal state. In England in 1753, Parliament passed a law regulating marriage. Marriages had to be licensed and ceremonies had to be held during the day and in public. Marriage is wholly a creature of the state. It may be entered, maintained, or dissolved only in accordance with the laws of the state. No one can get married without obtaining a license from the state. No one can get divorced without obtaining a judgment of divorce in a court in accordance with state laws. The fact that priests or whoever else are authorized by law to formalize a marriage does not turn marriage itself into a religious event. Judges and other civil servants are authorized by law to formalize marriages which, among other things, makes them government "backed" events.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 3:29 PM
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."

Marriage is a social contract between two persons wherein the consent of both is essential. Marriage is a secular institution in that it may only be entered into or dissolved by the laws of the state. A person's marital status entitles a person to an abundance of rights and similarly obligates a person to an abundance of duties.

Laws that prohibit polygamy have a purpose other than perserving the institution of marriage. The state does not have a compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage, but it does have a compelling interest in ensuring that the parties comply with their duties during the marriage and upon dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly, the state requires that a married person legally dissolve his first marriage to ensure the welfare of the first family before a second marriage may be entered and a second family formed.

Laws that prohibit incest have a purpose other than preserving the institution of marriage. Incest is illegal in order to protect children from becoming victims of sexual abuse within the family unit. The state has a compelling interest in protecting children.

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime.

You want to classify homosexual relationship as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to same-sex couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal.

dfletcher
01-27-2010, 5:02 PM
Exactly; I'm an Allen-Edmondsist ;)

From my cold dead feet ....

B Strong
01-27-2010, 5:05 PM
I like what I read, but we've been lied to before.

Uxi
01-27-2010, 5:59 PM
His social and economic policies are more libertarian/fiscal conservative than the "conservative" GOP candidates.

Regardless, I still disagree with JB more of the time than not and can't vote for him, how ever much I like his reputed stance on guns.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 6:09 PM
We have an inalienable, fundamental liberty in the right to drive. The fact that government requires that people get a drivers license to prove they are safe drivers before they are permitted to operate a vehicle on the road does not negate the fact that individuals have an inalienable, fundamental liberty interest in the right to travel. ALL RIGHTS are subject to reasonable regulation for the equal protection and security of all.

We have an inalienable liberty interest which includes the fundamental right to marry. Our right to marry may be regulated in part, but not completely denied.

When the government seeks to regulate the inalienable right to liberty which includes the fundamental right to marry, the government must articulate a compelling interest. They have not.

Show me where it says in the California or United States Constitution, that we have a fundamental right to those things. You can be stripped of your driving privileges, and you can't marry just anybody. So show me where these fundamental rights are enumerated.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 6:18 PM
Your claim that marriage is not a government institution is patently false. Marriage is a contract with the state. Ministers are permitted, in this country, to perform legally binding ceremonies as a courtesy. Still, though, the couple marrying must have a license from the state. Marriage as it's considered today has NOTHING to do with religion. Do you realize that marriages were contracts that were entered into like a business? Marriage changed from a custom to a legal state. In England in 1753, Parliament passed a law regulating marriage. Marriages had to be licensed and ceremonies had to be held during the day and in public. Marriage is wholly a creature of the state. It may be entered, maintained, or dissolved only in accordance with the laws of the state. No one can get married without obtaining a license from the state. No one can get divorced without obtaining a judgment of divorce in a court in accordance with state laws. The fact that priests or whoever else are authorized by law to formalize a marriage does not turn marriage itself into a religious event. Judges and other civil servants are authorized by law to formalize marriages which, among other things, makes them government "backed" events.

Your assertion that marriage is an institution of the government is what is patently false. For many millennium, people have married and been given in marriage through whatever religious ceremonies they believed in. Even arranged marriages had their religious trappings, so you can make whatever claims you choose, but you are wrong.

As for divorce, all a Jewish man had to do 2000 years ago is say "I divorce you" three times, and the divorce was complete and binding. There was no government involvement.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 6:19 PM
Show me where it says in the California or United States Constitution, that we have a fundamental right to those things. You can be stripped of your driving privileges, and you can't marry just anybody. So show me where these fundamental rights are enumerated.

Are you saying that the only rights we have are those spelled out in the constitution? That we only have those rights that are granted to us by the government?

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 6:29 PM
Are you saying that the only rights we have are those spelled out in the constitution? That we only have those rights that are granted to us by the government?

Nice try, but no, those rights are protected, not granted. Let me put it this way, when I went through drivers education, many many years ago, it was emphasized that driving was a PRIVILEGE granted by the state. Marriage, not granted by the state but recognized as as a religious institution is not a fundamental right, because if it was, then anyone could marry anyone else, however, you can't, so it is therefore not a fundamental right in the same sense of the Bill of Rights. In fact, when the Constitution was adopted, I seriously think anyone would have conceived of this issue coming up because it was a given that marriage was the duty of the church to bring a man and woman together, not the government.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 6:44 PM
Nice try, but no, those rights are protected, not granted.

So, the only rights that are protected are those that are explicit in the Constitution? What good are rights if they aren't protected?

Let me put it this way, when I went through drivers education, many many years ago, it was emphasized that driving was a PRIVILEGE granted by the state. Marriage, not granted by the state but recognized as as a religious institution is not a fundamental right, because if it was, then anyone could marry anyone else, however, you can't, so it is therefore not a fundamental right in the same sense of the Bill of Rights.

With respect to driving being a "privilege," you might want to look up Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) -- it wasn't about driver's licenses, but the Court's position couldn't be clearer: "Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's "right" but merely a "privilege." It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege." Just calling it a "privilege" doesn't mean it isn't something that can't be infringed.

With respect to marriage, see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) --- "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Also, "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Hmmm -- cannot be infringed -- sounds suspiciously like the language in one of our other rights that we seem to hold pretty dear on this board.

In fact, when the Constitution was adopted, I seriously think anyone would have conceived of this issue coming up because it was a given that marriage was the duty of the church to bring a man and woman together, not the government.

Same argument could be made that the Constitution didn't foresee all sort of things, from TV to machine guns.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 7:02 PM
So, the only rights that are protected are those that are explicit in the Constitution? What good are rights if they aren't protected?



With respect to driving being a "privilege," you might want to look up Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) -- it wasn't about driver's licenses, but the Court's position couldn't be clearer: "Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's "right" but merely a "privilege." It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege." Just calling it a "privilege" doesn't mean it isn't something that can't be infringed.

With respect to marriage, see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) --- "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Also, "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Hmmm -- cannot be infringed -- sounds suspiciously like the language in one of our other rights that we seem to hold pretty dear on this board.



Same argument could be made that the Constitution didn't foresee all sort of things, from TV to machine guns.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, but I took driver education in '71, and it was a privilege at that time. So perhaps you may want to elaborate on the point you're trying to make.

Marriage has its restrictions just as even enumerated rights have restrictions. Brother and sister can't marry each other, cousins can't marry each other, uncles can't marry nieces, fathers can't marry daughters and in most states, including california, men can't marry men, and women can't marry women. Even still, polygamy is unlawful. Interestingly enough, these same prohibitions on marriage are outlined in the Bible. I just thought you would want to know that.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 7:19 PM
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, but I took driver education in '71, and it was a privilege at that time. So perhaps you may want to elaborate on the point you're trying to make.

The point is simple. It doesn't matter if something is called a "privilege" or a "right" for the purposes of discrimination. A "privilege" isn't entitled to less protection from discrimination than a "right" just by virtue of how you choose to call it.

Marriage has its restrictions just as even enumerated rights have restrictions. Brother and sister can't marry each other, cousins can't marry each other, uncles can't marry nieces, fathers can't marry daughters and in most states, including california, men can't marry men, and women can't marry women. Even still, polygamy is unlawful. Interestingly enough, these same prohibitions on marriage are outlined in the Bible. I just thought you would want to know that.

The bible is entirely irrelevant to whether or not something is a right or not, or is constitutional or not.

I guess since you are cool with rights having restrictions, the restrictions on the 2A don't bother you?

If the current restrictions on the 2A aren't cool and should be changed, why can't restrictions on other rights similarly change?

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 7:52 PM
The point is simple. It doesn't matter if something is called a "privilege" or a "right" for the purposes of discrimination. A "privilege" isn't entitled to less protection from discrimination than a "right" just by virtue of how you choose to call it.

Driving privileges are in fact discriminatory. If you are a perceived as a hazard to the public, you can't drive. Elderly people are probably the most discriminated against, because age inhibits their ability to respond as quickly to an emergency. People under the age of 15 1/2 can't drive, chronic drunks can't drive, drug addicts can't drive, people with epilepsy are restricted from driving. So when you think about the different people who are not eligible to get licenses, how can you say it's a fundamental right.

While your writing, let me also say that flying a plane is also not a fundamental right. I just thought I would mention it because it's along the same reasoning as driving a car.

The bible is entirely irrelevant to whether or not something is a right or not, or is constitutional or not.

The point I'm making is, our laws prohibiting certain persons from marrying each other are derived directly from the Bible. It's just that simple.

I guess since you are cool with rights having restrictions, the restrictions on the 2A don't bother you?

If the current restrictions on the 2A aren't cool and should be changed, why can't restrictions on other rights similarly change?

The restrictions regarding the 2A go above and beyond what is constitutional. However, I would expect that once the 2A is incorporated to the states, the restriction on possession of Claymore mines, hand grenades, and M203's will probably pass strict scrutiny, just as sparrow missles, cruise missles, and ordnance that doesn't have a personal defense use will still be restricted and have applications exclusive to the military.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 8:07 PM
Driving privileges are in fact discriminatory. If you are a perceived as a hazard to the public, you can't drive. Elderly people are probably the most discriminated against, because age inhibits their ability to respond as quickly to an emergency. People under the age of 15 1/2 can't drive, chronic drunks can't drive, drug addicts can't drive, people with epilepsy are restricted from driving. So when you think about the different people who are not eligible to get licenses, how can you say it's a fundamental right.

You can't buy a gun if you are under 18 either -- but that doesn't make the 2A any less of a fundamental right.

Drivers licenses are not doled out based on membership in any suspect of protected class. Anyone who can pass the test, and not screw up later, can get a license. That's the point of that case. It's not that you can't have a test or a threshold to obtain a "privilege," just that you can't base the privilege on membership in a suspect class -- and in that way, it acts just like a right.

The point I'm making is, our laws prohibiting certain persons from marrying each other are derived directly from the Bible. It's just that simple.

The bible is no more relevant to the interpretation of the Constitution than is the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta or The Davinci Code -- probably even less so than the first two, and on par with the third. It may well be an important reference to many in this country, but it is irrelevant to the constitution.

The restrictions regarding the 2A go above and beyond what is constitutional. However, I would expect that once the 2A is incorporated to the states, the restriction on possession of Claymore mines, hand grenades, and M203's will probably pass strict scrutiny, just as sparrow missles, cruise missles, and ordnance that doesn't have a personal defense use will still be restricted and have applications exclusive to the military.

And the argument is that restrictions on marriage today go above and beyond what is constitutional. That's what's being debated in Walker's courtroom right now.

And what leads you to believe an M203 will be restricted after incorporation? M203's are already available legally in most states, after you get your tax stamp. Or are you arguing that a ban on gay marriage would pass strict scrutiny?

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 8:13 PM
How timely. Mark Leno just introduced amendments to California law to reiterate that no clergy can be compelled to perform a marriage or civil union that is contrary to his faith.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/sen-lenos-new-b.html

Alaric
01-27-2010, 8:17 PM
I continue to be pleasantly surprised by the support for human rights beyond gun rights professed by board members of the CGF. Kudos to you gentlemen and thank you. :)

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 8:27 PM
You can't buy a gun if you are under 18 either -- but that doesn't make the 2A any less of a fundamental right.

Drivers licenses are not doled out based on membership in any suspect of protected class. Anyone who can pass the test, and not screw up later, can get a license. That's the point of that case. It's not that you can't have a test or a threshold to obtain a "privilege," just that you can't base the privilege on membership in a suspect class -- and in that way, it acts just like a right.

Not exactly, try refusing to take a drunk test and see how long you keep your drivers license, even if you're not drunk but still refuse.


The bible is no more relevant to the interpretation of the Constitution than is the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta or The Davinci Code -- probably even less so than the first two, and on par with the third. It may well be an important reference to many in this country, but it is irrelevant to the constitution.

From everything I've read, the framers would disagree with you.


And the argument is that restrictions on marriage today go above and beyond what is constitutional. That's what's being debated in Walker's courtroom right now.

And that will be the question. I would ask you though, show me another society in history that accepted same sex marriage and continued that practice to present day. I know that any society that did, eventually outlawed it as a perverse practice.

And what leads you to believe an M203 will be restricted after incorporation? M203's are already available legally in most states, after you get your tax stamp. Or are you arguing that a ban on gay marriage would pass strict scrutiny?

You may be able to get the 203, but try and get the military rounds that aren't high explosive and cause a lot of damage.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 8:28 PM
How timely. Mark Leno just introduced amendments to California law to reiterate that no clergy can be compelled to perform a marriage or civil union that is contrary to his faith.

Works for me. So long as homosexuals can't hurt a church or clergy for not marrying them, and so long as a person isn't required to do anything that goes against their conscience, I really don't care.

[QUOTE]http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/sen-lenos-new-b.html

Alaric
01-27-2010, 8:51 PM
And that will be the question. I would ask you though, show me another society in history that accepted same sex marriage and continued that practice to present day. I know that any society that did, eventually outlawed it as a perverse practice.

So I would ask you, what ancient society has persisted to this present day? Romans? Greeks? etc? Your argument holds no water.

We live in an unprecedented age of enlightenment. That's not to say that there aren't those who want to return us to an age of darkness, of oppression. To be one who believes in human rights, in choice, in human freedom, need not be at odds with the Bible or any book of truth. They need only look into their own heart and find the willingness to let another man live as he would want to live, in their shoes.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 9:06 PM
Show me where it says in the California or United States Constitution, that we have a fundamental right to those things. You can be stripped of your driving privileges, and you can't marry just anybody. So show me where these fundamental rights are enumerated.

Your claim that marriage is not a right as enumerated or specifically mentioned in the constitution or law is one that may be argued on semantics but the core of what you're saying is dead wrong.

When our forefather's laid the groundwork for government, it was a novel idea that an individual held inalienable rights to life and liberty. When the Constitution was adopted, it was done so on the premise that "we the people" surrendered nothing but attained everything. Accordingly, the Constitution establishes a government of limited powers. Our federal government may only exercise enumerated powers and the government's power is further limited by the Bill of Rights. "We the People" do not have "constitutional rights" in any literal sense. The Constitution does NOT grant rights. It protects and secures the rights that we retained when we formed government.

The Constitution did not grant us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was ordained and established to SECURE the blessings of liberty to the people, to secure all the rights we retained. We surrendered nothing. As all men are created equal, my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not allow me to violate your right to life and liberty. The government SECURES my rights and it SECURES yours.

Fundamental rights are those rights that are fundamental in our concepts of ordered liberty. (Remember, LIBERTY is an inalienable right, so a fundamental right is merely a piece of the inalienable right to liberty.) Accordingly, I have an inalienable right to life and liberty and I have a fundamental right to life and liberty.

The government cannot deprive me of my fundamental right to life and liberty except by due process of law.

In our concept of "ordered liberty" where the government was formed to secure the inalienable rights of all citizens and persons within its jurisdiction, the right to life and liberty would be virtually meaningless if you were allowed to take away my life / liberty without any accountability or consequence. The government has general police powers to secure our concepts of ordered liberty and to promote the general welfare; we are accountable to the laws. Most laws are constitutional if they are reasonably related to a valid government interest. There is no question that the government has power to prohibit and criminalize murder and other crimes against persons and their property. If I commit a crime, even though I have an inalienable right to life/liberty and a fundamental right to life/liberty, the government can take away my life/liberty as punishment for a crime so long as the government provides me with due process of law.

The people did not surrender their right to life anymore than they surrendered their right to marry to the government only to have these rights "GRANTED" back to us under whatever terms the government desired. Remember, we surrendered nothing; we retained everything. We agreed to live in a society of ordered liberty where the government was responsible for securing the rights of all on an equal basis.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 9:12 PM
Marriage has its restrictions just as even enumerated rights have restrictions. Brother and sister can't marry each other, cousins can't marry each other, uncles can't marry nieces, fathers can't marry daughters and in most states, including california, men can't marry men, and women can't marry women. Even still, polygamy is unlawful. Interestingly enough, these same prohibitions on marriage are outlined in the Bible. I just thought you would want to know that.

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime.

You want to classify homosexual relationship as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to same-sex couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal. Prejudice against homosexuals cannot be disguised by placing an iron fist inside a velvet glove.

And really, now you're throwing the Bible card in? I'm ashamed of all Americans who believe they may impose their religious views on others through the power of the state. Your views are narrow-minded and oppressive.

nitrofc
01-27-2010, 9:22 PM
Alright.....what other choices do we have for Governor?

It can't simply come down to Meg & Jerry can it?

Geeeeze.:nuts:

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 9:23 PM
So I would ask you, what ancient society has persisted to this present day? Romans? Greeks? etc? Your argument holds no water.

Well, let's see. According to history, the remains of the Roman Empire were somewhat preserved through Constantine and the Byzantine Empire which we all know went well into the 10th century. According to history, Constantine actually ordered the execution of anyone involved in a homosexual union. While I don't condone execution, it does show how serious people were about not allowing that kind of behavior to spread.

We live in an unprecedented age of enlightenment. That's not to say that there aren't those who want to return us to an age of darkness, of oppression. To be one who believes in human rights, in choice, in human freedom, need not be at odds with the Bible or any book of truth. They need only look into their own heart and find the willingness to let another man live as he would want to live, in their shoes.

Enlightenment? Is that how it's going to be packaged? So if I refuse to accept homosexuality as anything other than deviate sexual behavior, I'm to be considered unenlightened and a bit backwards. How "progressive" of you.

I've been told that I'm unenlightened if I don't accept the 10 key values of the Green Party. I've been told that I'm unenlightened if I don't embrace Buddhism and Hinduism. I've been told that I can't possibly be thinking logically if I don't accept the teachings of Joseph Smith (Mormons). And I've been told that I'm in darkness since I don't accept the teachings of Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses). I've even been told that my rejection of the communist manifesto shows that I'm not a thinking person. In fact I've been told that I'm a barbarian because I eat meet and don't exclusively eat raw fruits and vegetables. And now I can add my lack of enlightenment to the fact that I don't accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. You are just one voice in a chorus of voices that seems to think that I'm unenlightened barbaric homophobic anachronism. I've been so calloused by those accusations that it's actually humorous to me.

blkhat1069
01-27-2010, 9:36 PM
Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime.


Polygamy is a crime due to a law written by men!
Polygamy is widely accepted in other parts of the world.
If there were such law it would not be illegal.
Homosexuality is no longer illegal (used to be).

Get the government out of the marriage business, and there is no longer a reason for this debate.

Hopi
01-27-2010, 9:39 PM
How timely. Mark Leno just introduced amendments to California law to reiterate that no clergy can be compelled to perform a marriage or civil union that is contrary to his faith.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/sen-lenos-new-b.html



Great! Protections for the religious from the protections of the gays. How fun. Truly equal protection for all.

GuyW
01-27-2010, 9:40 PM
Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime.

For now.

Homosexuality is not a crime.

Used to be....may be again.



You want to classify incest (polygamy) relationships as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying incestors [polygamist] couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to incestors [polygamist] couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal. Prejudice against incestors [polygamists] cannot be disguised by placing an iron fist inside a velvet glove.


...reorganized a little...
.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 9:41 PM
So it really all boils down to a definition of a word? I am with bwiese.

Abolish marriage. No such thing. Civil Unions and equal protection for all.

As for thw question about why government is in the business of marriage is because one of the primary functions of government is to provide documents that facilitate trade.

How do you prove you own a car when you present it for sale to someone? Title.

How do you prove you and your partner shared an oath and have legal rights? Certificate of Marriage. That is the only reason, no other.

Mr. Wiese and Theseus and others - thanks for weighing in on this. You guys are right on. I don't weigh in much, but I fell I need to here. IMHO, the fundamental role of government is to assure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental right for all citizens. This includes who marries who, what God(s) you pay homage to, etc. etc.

Honestly, I love the talk on this forum about fundamentals rights and freedoms. I do have to wonder about those who, on one hand demand their rights, then on the other, feel strongly that the rights of others should be abridged because they don't agree with their lifestyle ("My rights are important, but not yours."). My suggestion - get a life, and let others have theirs.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 9:43 PM
Not exactly, try refusing to take a drunk test and see how long you keep your drivers license, even if you're not drunk but still refuse.

I'm not sure how this statement advances your argument. Whether or not a right or privilege can be taken away isn't the issue. Whether or not a right or privilege can be withheld from someone due to their membership in a particular class is.

From everything I've read, the framers would disagree with you.

Well, good luck citing the Bible as precedent in your next court case.

And that will be the question. I would ask you though, show me another society in history that accepted same sex marriage and continued that practice to present day. I know that any society that did, eventually outlawed it as a perverse practice.

Again, maybe something of historical interest, but irrelevant with respect to constitutionality.

I mean, if you want to go down that road, that are a lot of societies through the ages that have restricted ownership and use of weapons -- does that mean we should repeal the 2A?

I can show you a lot of societies where slavery was accepted practice -- does that support the constitutionality of slavery in the U.S. post 13th Amendment? Of course not. So why should such information matter to any other right?

You may be able to get the 203, but try and get the military rounds that aren't high explosive and cause a lot of damage.

My point was simply that you were making an arbitrary cutoff of what will be allowed after 2A incorporation, a cutoff that has no basis in law at this time, and one that actually is worse than the cutoff that exists today.

But you didn't answer my question -- do you think that a ban on homosexual marriage would survive a strict scrutiny analysis? Is there a compelling state interest keeping homosexuals from being married? If so, what is it?

blkhat1069
01-27-2010, 9:43 PM
Alright.....what other choices do we have for Governor?

It can't simply come down to Meg & Jerry can it?

Geeeeze.:nuts:

She's crazy but loves liberty. Nightingale will most likely get my vote.

If I was to vote on a candidate solely on 2A stance, hers is the closest to how most here feel...ON 2A.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 9:45 PM
Great! Protections for the religious from the protections of the gays. How fun. Truly equal protection for all......

Simple solution - churches who do not provide gay marriages loose their tax exempt benefits.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 9:45 PM
Your claim that marriage is not a right as enumerated or specifically mentioned in the constitution or law is one that may be argued on semantics but the core of what you're saying is dead wrong.

When our forefather's laid the groundwork for government, it was a novel idea that an individual held inalienable rights to life and liberty. When the Constitution was adopted, it was done so on the premise that "we the people" surrendered nothing but attained everything. Accordingly, the Constitution establishes a government of limited powers. Our federal government may only exercise enumerated powers and the government's power is further limited by the Bill of Rights. "We the People" do not have "constitutional rights" in any literal sense. The Constitution does NOT grant rights. It protects and secures the rights that we retained when we formed government.

The Constitution did not grant us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was ordained and established to SECURE the blessings of liberty to the people, to secure all the rights we retained. We surrendered nothing. As all men are created equal, my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not allow me to violate your right to life and liberty. The government SECURES my rights and it SECURES yours.

Fundamental rights are those rights that are fundamental in our concepts of ordered liberty. (Remember, LIBERTY is an inalienable right, so a fundamental right is merely a piece of the inalienable right to liberty.) Accordingly, I have an inalienable right to life and liberty and I have a fundamental right to life and liberty.

The government cannot deprive me of my fundamental right to life and liberty except by due process of law.

In our concept of "ordered liberty" where the government was formed to secure the inalienable rights of all citizens and persons within its jurisdiction, the right to life and liberty would be virtually meaningless if you were allowed to take away my life / liberty without any accountability or consequence. The government has general police powers to secure our concepts of ordered liberty and to promote the general welfare; we are accountable to the laws. Most laws are constitutional if they are reasonably related to a valid government interest. There is no question that the government has power to prohibit and criminalize murder and other crimes against persons and their property. If I commit a crime, even though I have an inalienable right to life/liberty and a fundamental right to life/liberty, the government can take away my life/liberty as punishment for a crime so long as the government provides me with due process of law.

The people did not surrender their right to life anymore than they surrendered their right to marry to the government only to have these rights "GRANTED" back to us under whatever terms the government desired. Remember, we surrendered nothing; we retained everything. We agreed to live in a society of ordered liberty where the government was responsible for securing the rights of all on an equal basis.

Thank you for the history lesson. I doubt the framers would agree with you that homosexual marriage is a "normal" lifestyle protected by the constitution. In fact, up until 1970, homosexuality was viewed as deviate sexual behavior. It wasn't until the homosexual community began harassing the psychiatric community that homosexuality was reluctantly removed from the list. Just because the perverse claim their behavior to be normal, doesn't make it so.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 9:50 PM
Thank you for the history lesson. I doubt the framers would agree with you that homosexual marriage is a "normal" lifestyle protected by the constitution. In fact, up until 1970, homosexuality was viewed as deviate sexual behavior. It wasn't until the homosexual community began harassing the psychiatric community that homosexuality was reluctantly removed from the list. Just because the perverse claim their behavior to be normal, doesn't make it so.

The framers thought that woman shouldn't vote and that slave ownership was legal, too. If you are going to use the argument that the framers wouldn't be for homosexual marriage, I guess you are against woman's suffrage and the 13th and 14th amendments, too?

If you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you are going to apply originalism to, you shouldn't get upset when someone else picks and chooses different parts than you do...

GuyW
01-27-2010, 9:50 PM
Well, good luck citing the Bible as precedent in your next court case.



You say that like there are no important cases which cite the Bible....

.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 9:51 PM
Thank you for the history lesson. I doubt the framers would agree with you that homosexual marriage is a "normal" lifestyle protected by the constitution. In fact, up until 1970, homosexuality was viewed as deviate sexual behavior. It wasn't until the homosexual community began harassing the psychiatric community that homosexuality was reluctantly removed from the list. Just because the perverse claim their behavior to be normal, doesn't make it so.

Even if your basis is that you morally disapprove, moral disapproval alone, whether based on personal biases or hate or religious beliefs (which I do not believe can be separated and compartmentalized in a manner to eliminate biases or hate), can never serve as a legitimate basis for unequal treatment of the persons through the operation of laws. That's oppression, plain and simple. Moral disapproval of same-sex marriages is grounded in homophobia (as the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality) and does not serve a compelling governmental objective or interest. Our United States Supreme Court cases have made it clear than an aversion to a particular group or class of persons can never justify discriminatory laws. Lawrence v. Texas.

The Supreme Court has conclusively stated: (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. Lawrence v. Texas.

GuyW
01-27-2010, 9:52 PM
Simple solution - churches who do not provide gay marriages loose their tax exempt benefits.

Big on the 1st Amendment, aren't you?

.

Hopi
01-27-2010, 9:52 PM
Simple solution - churches who do not provide gay marriages loose their tax exempt benefits.

Without speaking on the tax exempt status issue, I think that protecting the religious from performing acts they find objectionable is a great compromise. If that is truly their agenda, as opposed to what appears to be just a will to oppress homosexuals, then this should quiet the lot of them.....




Commenting on your earlier post just above....I do appreciate that these threads have evolved over the last 2 years to include many more unique voices in support of liberty and civil rights.....

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 9:53 PM
Roadrunner, I just now noticed you're from Patterson. 'Nuff said.

LO freaking L. I guess that means I'm a redneck barbaric closed minded unenlightened Neanderthal.

Thanks. :43:

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 9:55 PM
Polygamy is a crime due to a law written by men!
Polygamy is widely accepted in other parts of the world.
If there were such law it would not be illegal.

I am not aware of any society that exists today that practices a form of polygamy that would be legal in the U.S. under the 14th amendment. All of the societies that practice polygamy allow a man to marry multiple women, but this would run afoul of the 14th amendment unless women were allowed to marry multiple men. So, it's not like we could simply import someone else's version of polygamy into the U.S.

Besides, it would take a whole lot more than just saying "marriage is between any number of consenting adults" to make polygamy work in the U.S.

Homosexuality is no longer illegal (used to be).

So, is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

Get the government out of the marriage business, and there is no longer a reason for this debate.

Get religion out of the marriage business and we end up in the same place.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 9:56 PM
Big on the 1st Amendment, aren't you?

.

Yeah - good point. I guess if there was a church that wouldn't allow blacks to marry, or asians, etc., the church should enjoy tax exempt status, also. In my mind it's not establishment of religion, but abuse of religion.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 9:57 PM
You say that like there are no important cases which cite the Bible....

.

There are no cases that cite the Bible for the purposes of interpreting a law. The Bible may be cited in a historical sense, but it is not a source for interpreting the law itself.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 9:57 PM
LO freaking L. I guess that means I'm a redneck barbaric closed minded unenlightened Neanderthal.

Thanks. :43:

That is pretty much how you've presented yourself, yes. You being from Patterson pretty much seals the deal.

GuyW
01-27-2010, 10:03 PM
If people were so big on the 1st Amendment, why in God's name would they be in favor of tax exempt status for a religious institution?


I guess if there was a church that wouldn't allow blacks to marry, or asians, etc., the church should enjoy tax exempt status, also. In my mind it's not establishment of religion, but abuse of religion.

Dedeye and shooting4fun - you seem to have a reading comprehension problem regarding "make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Typical lib hypocrites - slam "religion" for having a public voice, and then turn around and try to dictate the tenets of the religion by the coercion of unConstitutional taxation, all the while pretending to support the 1st Amendment.

You support taxing all Constitutional rights, do you?

.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 10:03 PM
You say that like there are no important cases which cite the Bible....


Um, there aren't? The Bible may have been referenced but not used as justification for a law

Alaric
01-27-2010, 10:03 PM
Enlightenment? Is that how it's going to be packaged? So if I refuse to accept homosexuality as anything other than deviate sexual behavior, I'm to be considered unenlightened and a bit backwards. How "progressive" of you.

I've been told that I'm unenlightened if I don't accept the 10 key values of the Green Party. I've been told that I'm unenlightened if I don't embrace Buddhism and Hinduism. I've been told that I can't possibly be thinking logically if I don't accept the teachings of Joseph Smith (Mormons). And I've been told that I'm in darkness since I don't accept the teachings of Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses). I've even been told that my rejection of the communist manifesto shows that I'm not a thinking person. In fact I've been told that I'm a barbarian because I eat meet and don't exclusively eat raw fruits and vegetables. And now I can add my lack of enlightenment to the fact that I don't accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. You are just one voice in a chorus of voices that seems to think that I'm unenlightened barbaric homophobic anachronism. I've been so calloused by those accusations that it's actually humorous to me.

I give up. You're right. Thanks for enlightening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) me, we shouldn't tolerate Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, vegetarians, gays, or anyone else you disagree with.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 10:07 PM
You two seem to have a reading comprehension problem regarding "make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Typical lib hypocrites - slam "religion" for having a public voice, and then turn around and try to muzzle religion, all the while ignoring the 1st Amendment

Uh, what? I am not prohibiting your religious freedom in ANY sense. You can speak all you want and dislike all you want and as much as I hear that your stance on gay marriage comes from religious views, the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created so we could all have our opinions and voice them loudly but that does not mean restricting people because of their sexual preference. If the Bible (or someone's view of the Bible) replaces the Constitution as the law of the land, we go against the foundation upon which our country was founded.

It honestly doesn't bother me that you think homosexuality is a sin. You are entitled to your opinion but I missed the part where you have the right to impose your view on others through government force

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:08 PM
Even if your basis is that you morally disapprove, moral disapproval alone, whether based on personal biases or hate or religious beliefs (which I do not believe can be separated and compartmentalized in a manner to eliminate biases or hate), can never serve as a legitimate basis for unequal treatment of the persons through the operation of laws. That's oppression, plain and simple. Moral disapproval of same-sex marriages is grounded in homophobia (as the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality) and does not serve a compelling governmental objective or interest. Our United States Supreme Court cases have made it clear than an aversion to a particular group or class of persons can never justify discriminatory laws. Lawrence v. Texas.

The Supreme Court has conclusively stated: (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. Lawrence v. Texas.

Oh no, you didn't use the "H" word. You proceed from a false assumption my dear. I spent several years working in Los Angeles, specifically.......wait for it..........WEST HOLLYWOOD. I did a lot of work there and spent many a night grabbing a bite at one of my favorite eateries on Santa Monica blvd. In fact I entertained myself at the Yukon Mining Company at 7300 Santa Monica blvd while I watched the trannies strut their stuff for the unaware males that lined the walls as the male prostitutes turned tricks in the parking lot by selling cheap blow jobs. Or how about the trannies that masturbated each other around the corner from a Russian restaurant. Those two were caught by the cops. Halloween was even more interesting. I won't go into that, I guarantee I would get banned if I described what I saw that night.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 10:12 PM
Dedeye and shooting4fun - you seem to have a reading comprehension problem regarding "make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Typical lib hypocrites - slam "religion" for having a public voice, and then turn around and try to muzzle religion, all the while pretending to support the 1st Amendment.

.

Aha - because I disagree with you I'm liberal - that may be a compliment :-). Perhaps if you read a little more carefully, you would see that I'm not advocating prohibiting free speech. What I don't support is one group forcing their beliefs on others. I won't try to convert you adhere to what I believe is right in my religion (guess what that is), and you provide me with the same courtesy. You live your life, and I'll live mine.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 10:13 PM
Uh, what? I am not prohibiting your religious freedom in ANY sense. You can speak all you want and dislike all you want and as much as I hear that your stance on gay marriage comes from religious views, the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created so we could all have our opinions and voice them loudly but that does not mean restricting people because of their sexual preference. If the Bible (or someone's view of the Bible) replaces the Constitution as the law of the land, we go against the foundation upon which our country was founded.

It honestly doesn't bother me that you think homosexuality is a sin. You are entitled to your opinion but I missed the part where you have the right to impose your view on others through government force

You said it so much better than I did!!! Nicely done.

Hopi
01-27-2010, 10:14 PM
Oh no, you didn't use the "H" word. You proceed from a false assumption my dear. I spent several years working in Los Angeles, specifically.......wait for it..........WEST HOLLYWOOD. I did a lot of work there and spent many a night grabbing a bite at one of my favorite eateries on Santa Monica blvd. In fact I entertained myself at the Yukon Mining Company at 7300 Santa Monica blvd while I watched the trannies strut their stuff for the unaware males that lined the walls as the male prostitutes turned tricks in the parking lot by selling cheap blow jobs. Or how about the trannies that masturbated each other around the corner from a Russian restaurant. Those two were caught by the cops. Halloween was even more interesting. I won't go into that, I guarantee I would get banned if I described what I saw that night.

How does your entertaining yourself by watching trannies strut their stuff in 1973 bear any relevance to this discussion? Is that just a 'see, I'm not afraid of them' thing?

Alaric
01-27-2010, 10:15 PM
You two seem to have a reading comprehension problem regarding "make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Typical lib hypocrites - slam "religion" for having a public voice, and then turn around and try to muzzle religion, all the while ignoring the 1st Amendment.

.

Friend, I have no problem with you quoting the bible to support your thesis on law as long as you have no problem with my friend here Ahmed quoting the Koran for his thesis on our law, and my friend Liu quoting the Tipitaka, or my friend Aruna who thinks the law should be interpreted through Hindu scripture (like the Ramayana, or, my favorite, the Kama Sutra), or maybe take my friend Billy at his word. He thinks we should all believe and interpret our law through his interpretation of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism).

Do you have a problem with an agnostic view of the law?

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 10:15 PM
Oh no, you didn't use the "H" word. You proceed from a false assumption my dear. I spent several years working in Los Angeles, specifically.......wait for it..........WEST HOLLYWOOD. I did a lot of work there and spent many a night grabbing a bite at one of my favorite eateries on Santa Monica blvd. In fact I entertained myself at the Yukon Mining Company at 7300 Santa Monica blvd while I watched the trannies strut their stuff for the unaware males that lined the walls as the male prostitutes turned tricks in the parking lot by selling cheap blow jobs. Or how about the trannies that masturbated each other around the corner from a Russian restaurant. Those two were caught by the cops. Halloween was even more interesting. I won't go into that, I guarantee I would get banned if I described what I saw that night.

I don't follow. So you watched trannies and proceeded to be disgusted/entertained by them and that is somehow relevant? Am I missing something?

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:16 PM
I give up. You're right. Thanks for enlightening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) me, we shouldn't tolerate Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, vegetarians, gays, or anyone else you disagree with.

Don't try and twist it around, you accused me of being intolerant because I don't accept those points of view. People can believe what they want, just don't denigrate me because I don't believe as you do.

haveyourmile
01-27-2010, 10:20 PM
The bible is no more relevant to the interpretation of the Constitution than is the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta or The Davinci Code -- probably even less so than the first two, and on par with the third. It may well be an important reference to many in this country, but it is irrelevant to the constitution.
From everything I've read, the framers would disagree with you.

And if the US was founded on Christian morals why on Earth does the Constitution have such a glaring omission in the fact that GOD is never mentioned. Not even once. And that's the framework for the entire US government. In fact, the government itself issued a statement in 1797 (less than a decade after the Constitution was written) specifically stating that the US government is "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (the Treaty of Tripoli). And guess what? The government at that time agreed unanimously with that decree--only the third time in history that they had a unanimous vote.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:30 PM
I don't follow. So you watched trannies and proceeded to be disgusted/entertained by them and that is somehow relevant? Am I missing something?

Let me read it back to you. You said, and I quote, "Moral disapproval of same-sex marriages is grounded in homophobia (as the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality) and does not serve a compelling governmental objective or interest. Our United States Supreme Court cases have made it clear than an aversion to a particular group or class of persons can never justify discriminatory laws.

My recognition of homosexuality as deviate sexual behavior is not some irrational fear, it's a very real observation of the perverse behavior that appears to be inerrant in the homosexual lifestyle. And I believe it's as perverse as incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. Now, we don't allow brothers and sisters to marry, we don't allow humans to marry livestock, and we certainly become alarmed when a pedophile is found in our neighborhoods. Marriage is another way of attempting to legitimize aberrant behavior. For that reason and the other reasons I've mentioned in previous posts, I am against homosexual marriages.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:34 PM
And if the US was founded on Christian morals why on Earth does the Constitution have such a glaring omission in the fact that GOD is never mentioned. Not even once. And that's the framework for the entire US government. In fact, the government itself issued a statement in 1797 (less than a decade after the Constitution was written) specifically stating that the US government is "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (the Treaty of Tripoli). And guess what? The government at that time agreed unanimously with that decree--only the third time in history that they had a unanimous vote.

What the Constitution lacks in references to God, the framers make up in volumes of their personal writings.

Alaric
01-27-2010, 10:37 PM
I give up. You're right. Thanks for enlightening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) me, we shouldn't tolerate Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, vegetarians, gays, or anyone else you disagree with.
Don't try and twist it around, you accused me of being intolerant because I don't accept those points of view. People can believe what they want, just don't denigrate me because I don't believe as you do.

Uh, I'm not twisting. You just said (bolded) that you don't accept those points of view. That's the embodiment of "intolerance".

CenterX
01-27-2010, 10:38 PM
Meg vs Jerry - it is Mr Brown all the way.
She scares me.... her add sounds like Arnold all over again.
I've sworn to never vote for a lawyer again - but I just may unswear myself.
Equal Rights, Individual Rights and Freedom is what is is all about - even when it is too creepy for me to partake in or get within reach of a behavior of choice it is important to maintain the Equal, Individual, Rights of Freedom.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 10:42 PM
Let me read it back to you. You said, and I quote, "Moral disapproval of same-sex marriages is grounded in homophobia (as the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality) and does not serve a compelling governmental objective or interest. Our United States Supreme Court cases have made it clear than an aversion to a particular group or class of persons can never justify discriminatory laws.

My recognition of homosexuality as deviate sexual behavior is not some irrational fear, it's a very real observation of the perverse behavior that appears to be inerrant in the homosexual lifestyle. And I believe it's as perverse as incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. Now, we don't allow brothers and sisters to marry, we don't allow humans to marry livestock, and we certainly become alarmed when a pedophile is found in our neighborhoods. Marriage is another way of attempting to legitimize aberrant behavior. For that reason and the other reasons I've mentioned in previous posts, I am against homosexual marriages.

I fully support your right to believe what you want regarding homosexuality. Just don't impose your belief system on others.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:49 PM
Uh, I'm not twisting. You just said (bolded) that you don't accept those points of view. That's the embodiment of "intolerance".

Just because I don't accept those philosophies (as in believe) doesn't make me intolerant. I am polite, and give them all of the courtesies due a human being. However, when I am told I must accept those premises or be labeled intolerant, unenlightened or phobic, after I'm finished laughing at you, and you persist, they can quickly turn into fighting words.

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 10:49 PM
What the Constitution lacks in references to God, the framers make up in volumes of their personal writings.

But the framers wrote into the Constitution such things as slavery, and a black person being 3/5ths of a white person, and not allowing women to vote -- shouldn't we listen to what the framers said there as well?

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:50 PM
I fully support your right to believe what you want regarding homosexuality. Just don't impose your belief system on others.

I won't if you won't.

Roadrunner
01-27-2010, 10:52 PM
But the framers wrote into the Constitution such things as slavery, and a black person being 3/5ths of a white person, and not allowing women to vote -- shouldn't we listen to what the framers said there as well?

Homosexuality was still considered deviate behavior long after slavery was abolished. Really, can you do better than that?

Hunt
01-27-2010, 10:59 PM
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.

for me there is no weighing at all, as far as I am concerned interference by the State in any personal matter of an individuals life is an act of violence by the State. The State has no business getting involved in any social issue, any action by the State is violence against the person. There is no moral arguement to support the empowerment of the State to interfere with a Natural person's rights. Given my beliefs I always vote for the least violent criminal thug.

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:59 PM
Homosexuality was still considered deviate behavior long after slavery was abolished. Really, can you do better than that?

Just because your prejudice is a bit older than slavery doesn't make it right.

You can believe what you want just as long as you don't force your local courthouse/clerk to not give licenses to folks in the same way that the Brady's are happy to keep you from not getting a license to carry.

-Gene

macadamizer
01-27-2010, 11:00 PM
Homosexuality was still considered deviate behavior long after slavery was abolished. Really, can you do better than that?

I am not sure what you are arguing here. Whether or not homosexuality was still considered deviate behavior is not pertinent to this question. My question to you is simply this -- if you are going to rely on the founders for your position that a biblical definition of marriage is what the constitution means, then why doesn't the founders beliefs on race, slavery and woman's rights matter?

If your position is that things can change, why can't the definition of marriage? The Constitution doesn't cite to the Bible, or reference the Bible, for any definition of marriage -- so if we are going to rely on the founder's words, shouldn't we still have slavery, still deny women the right to vote? Shouldn't we be limited to muskets and cannons under the 2nd amendment?

Hunt
01-27-2010, 11:05 PM
But the framers wrote into the Constitution such things as slavery, and a black person being 3/5ths of a white person, and not allowing women to vote -- shouldn't we listen to what the framers said there as well?

well, since they wrote those things in let's dump the idea of the individuals Natural Rights. After all, the founders were haters and the Constitution is flawed so let's just trash the idea all together and progress towards something better, like ummm, how about pure Democracy. Better yet, let's let our leaders decide for us how to create social justice.
This whole arguement about gay marriage is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Why would someone want to encourage the State's involvement in their relationship? Gay activist actually think they are missing out on something, they seem hell bent on going backwards in the arena of personal freedom. Hey if you have the State telling you what to do and how to conduct your life, I don't want to miss out on that either. Arm your mind, make the State irrelevant every chance you can and whenever it is safe to do so.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 11:06 PM
I won't if you won't.

You've got a deal!

Hopi
01-27-2010, 11:08 PM
You've got a deal!

I don't think you read the fine print on that one....;)

Alaric
01-27-2010, 11:09 PM
Just because I don't accept those philosophies (as in believe) doesn't make me intolerant. I am polite, and give them all of the courtesies due a human being. However, when I am told I must accept those premises or be labeled intolerant, unenlightened or phobic, after I'm finished laughing at you, and you persist, they can quickly turn into fighting words.

You don't need to "believe", just don't try to use the government to quash other people's rights. Reasonable, that would be the tolerant approach. However, when I am told that I must accept other people being intolerant of people, I grow fighting mad, and after I'm finished laughing at YOU, those intolerance's can quickly turn into intolerable grievances than can't be settled with words.

In that case thumb wars usually suffice. And I have big f%cking hands.

shooting4fun
01-27-2010, 11:11 PM
I don't think you read the fine print on that one....;)

You may be right - I'm overly optimistic. :D

Gray Peterson
01-27-2010, 11:27 PM
Someone here posted that marriage licensing was a creation after the Civil War to keep interracial couples from marrying or some such. This is not true.

This was based on an Act of Parliament in 1753, pre-Revolutionary War times.

Let me read it back to you. You said, and I quote, "Moral disapproval of same-sex marriages is grounded in homophobia (as the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality) and does not serve a compelling governmental objective or interest. Our United States Supreme Court cases have made it clear than an aversion to a particular group or class of persons can never justify discriminatory laws.

My recognition of homosexuality as deviate sexual behavior is not some irrational fear, it's a very real observation of the perverse behavior that appears to be inerrant in the homosexual lifestyle.

Gee, because every gay person lives in West Hollywood and engages in public sex.

Your true knowledge on this issue is questionable.

haveyourmile
01-28-2010, 12:09 AM
My recognition of homosexuality as deviate sexual behavior is not some irrational fear, it's a very real observation of the perverse behavior that appears to be inerrant in the homosexual lifestyle. And I believe it's as perverse as incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.

You're equating two consenting adults in a committed relationship to PEDOPHILIA?

Canute
01-28-2010, 1:36 AM
Awww, crap. I was hoping to learn something about past and possibly future Governor Moonbeam.
Instead some jerk turned it into an argument about gay marriage. Couldn't the mods lay some smack down?
Me? Why is the government concerning itself with the romantic relationships of consenting adults?
Since he's a serial gun purchaser (three guns? cool!) and user with a progressive bent on social issues and an allegedly penny pinching one on fiscal ones (we really need this right now) JB seems like a good bet for me.
I can't put my finger on it, but I would seem to have some issues with Whitman on her past behavior. As a conservative would she develop "Think of the Children" tourettes?

Ford8N
01-28-2010, 5:46 AM
Awww, crap. I was hoping to learn something about past and possibly future Governor Moonbeam.
Instead some jerk turned it into an argument about gay marriage. Couldn't the mods lay some smack down?
Me? Why is the government concerning itself with the romantic relationships of consenting adults?
Since he's a serial gun purchaser (three guns? cool!) and user with a progressive bent on social issues and an allegedly penny pinching one on fiscal ones (we really need this right now) JB seems like a good bet for me.
I can't put my finger on it, but I would seem to have some issues with Whitman on her past behavior. As a conservative would she develop "Think of the Children" tourettes?

I agree, what does sex between two people have to do with 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws forum. Thread drift to the max.

nicki
01-28-2010, 6:28 AM
Look,

What don't we all chill a little and go for things most of us could agree on.

Lets see what I hope most of us can agree on.

Let's kill the "Death tax" permanently.

Replace the Income tax with a national sales tax and by default, all the so called tax benefits are gone. I like the Ron Paul plan of cutting Federal spending and having a flat tax with a rate of 0 myself.

That will take care of most of the so called government benefits of marriage quickly.

Next, get the state out of marriage, replace marriage with civil unions. Marriages will still be performed in Churches and if a couple wants a civil union, then they get married under the power of their God under the rules of their church.

If they want a state sanctioned union, that they get a civil union and they can either take a generic union or they can write their own contract.

Do this and we don't have to argue about Gay Marriage, all sides get something.

Now, let's get back the rest of our rights. I am looking forward to the day when I can.

1. Ride a motorcyle down the highway at 90mph with a loaded pistols, one open carry, one concealed, nunchuks on my person, a tricked out SBR AR selective fire with suppressor with 30 round detachable mags in side scabbard on one side of my bike, a select fire Saiga 12 with folding stock and short barrel.

Of course to really have fun, I get to have a pound of weed in my backpack and I get to ride without a helmet.

I get to do all the above and no cop will bother me except maybe to ask me out:p

Of course at this time I'm not doing the above, but I would like to have the option to.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-28-2010, 6:53 AM
1. Ride a motorcyle down the highway at 90mph with a loaded pistols, one open carry, one concealed, nunchuks on my person, a tricked out SBR AR selective fire with suppressor with 30 round detachable mags in side scabbard on one side of my bike, a select fire Saiga 12 with folding stock and short barrel.


And the sword! Don't forget the sword!


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
01-28-2010, 7:18 AM
With respect to polygamy, there are good reasons why polygamy is fundamentally different than a 2-person marriage -- namely, the division of stuff. If person A marries person B, then marries person C, what happens when person A dies (or seeks divorce)? Does person B have to divorce person C? What is the remaining relationship between B and C? What if A wants to divorce B but not C, but C wants to remain with both A and B? If person A is allowed to marry both B and C, couldn't person B marry person D as well? If B dies, how do A and C and D divvy up B's stuff? And what happens if D is married as well to E? If A and B had a kid together, and B dies, does C have any rights or responsibilities with respect to the kid? How does one file their taxes? This level of complexity just isn't there with any sort of 2-person marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

To allow polygamous marriage would require a wholesale rewrite of not only marriage and divorce law, but also the law of trusts and estates, as well as who knows however many other laws. It's not just one more small step beyond homosexual marriage, which only requires a change in the definition of the term.

With respect to incestuous relationships, if both parties are adults, able to and willing to fully articulate their desires and consent to the marriage, there really isn't any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, even under current laws. However, most of the incestuous relationships that have been written about usual involve a disparate power relationship -- a parent and child, or a dominant sibling and a submissive sibling. When you have such a disparate power position, it's hard to say whether the weaker side is actually consenting to the relationship. So this falls under the same rules that make it tough or impossible for an adult to marry a minor in many cases, due to the disparate ability to control the relationship or the lack of ability to consent to such a relationship. And similar rules that prohibit relationships in some cases between doctors and patients, and therapists and patients. Since the expectation is that most of these relationships are likely not fully consensual, it makes some sense to simply ban them all rather than try to parse out the few that are legit. Presumably if there is enough interest in fully consensual incestuous relationships, these people can try to get the laws against them overturned as well. But again, it wouldn't be an automatic "next step."

With respect to bestiality (I know, not brought up here, but brought up elsewhere), we are not talking about two or more persons, so it's really not relevant at all to the conversation. Only persons have the ability to consent to such a relationship.

I guess with recent SCOTUS rulings, though, the question might be raised as to whether someone could marry a corporation, since corporations have many of the rights of a person...




The claim (of others, not you) that there's no comparison between gay, incestuous polygamous marriages just because two of them are illegal is a non-argument. People make laws, people can un-make laws. Your argument that polygamy would complicate various laws is a vast improvement over those who dodge the issue. And yet, polygamy works in other countries. Complexity, in & of itself, doesn't seem to be cause enough to ban the practice. If gay marriage is coming our way, I don't see any reason polygamous marriage won't also be coming our way.


As for incest, there's the example of Mackenzie & John Phillips. She was 19 when the relationship started. I'm not seeing an argument that it she was in any way 'coerced' into it. So, I'm also not seeing any good argument to keep such things illegal once gay marriage becomes legal.


As for bestiality, it won't be "marriage" but will it remain illegal? If we allow gay, polygamous & incestuous marriages, what would (what could) the argument be to keep people off (and from under) their pets?


Mind, I am in no way in favor of such things. But (to repeat what I said before) if gay marriage comes the other two are likely to come as well. That being the case, thought as to how to react should be taken up.



And since I believe a post should have something to do with the subject of the thread:

Seeing how the socially conservative Republicans get worked up over RINOs, maybe the DINOs will have the same effect on the fiscal liberal Democrats. Maybe we should all rotate our party registration every few years since most of us think all politicians are the same regardless of party affiliation. . . . probably a lot more fun than registering as independents.

I hope this won't backfire into a socially conservative fiscally liberal administration of the last decade. . . .


Well, I certainly believe that pols are all the same. My support for JB is conditioned on the fact that he's merely the best of a bad lot.

But I like the term "DINO" & wonder how I didn't think of that. Its only completely obvious, after all. In any event, I like the term, given how old fashioned I am. :)


The Raisuli

bubbapug1
01-28-2010, 8:09 AM
His stand on guns might explain why DOJ has been quiet on the BB issue...

I especially like this comment.

"Some people on the outside say government should do everything," Brown said during a Christmas Eve interview in his downtown Oakland office . "Well that is an endless expansion of government and I don't believe in that. You have limits. You have a limited number of people and hours in the day. So I set priorities."

As we all know, or those who own buisnesses or tried to pull a building permit know...government has become all too instrusive non common sense and is choking off America's ability to innovate and grow.

Roadrunner
01-28-2010, 10:44 AM
You're equating two consenting adults in a committed relationship to PEDOPHILIA?

In perversity and mental disorder, absolutely.

joelberg
01-28-2010, 10:48 AM
Look,

What don't we all chill a little and go for things most of us could agree on.

Lets see what I hope most of us can agree on.

Let's kill the "Death tax" permanently.

Replace the Income tax with a national sales tax and by default, all the so called tax benefits are gone. I like the Ron Paul plan of cutting Federal spending and having a flat tax with a rate of 0 myself.

That will take care of most of the so called government benefits of marriage quickly.

Next, get the state out of marriage, replace marriage with civil unions. Marriages will still be performed in Churches and if a couple wants a civil union, then they get married under the power of their God under the rules of their church.

If they want a state sanctioned union, that they get a civil union and they can either take a generic union or they can write their own contract.

Do this and we don't have to argue about Gay Marriage, all sides get something.

Now, let's get back the rest of our rights. I am looking forward to the day when I can.

1. Ride a motorcyle down the highway at 90mph with a loaded pistols, one open carry, one concealed, nunchuks on my person, a tricked out SBR AR selective fire with suppressor with 30 round detachable mags in side scabbard on one side of my bike, a select fire Saiga 12 with folding stock and short barrel.

Of course to really have fun, I get to have a pound of weed in my backpack and I get to ride without a helmet.

I get to do all the above and no cop will bother me except maybe to ask me out:p

Of course at this time I'm not doing the above, but I would like to have the option to.

+10000000

This was everything I was thinking of writing!

Old Timer
01-28-2010, 11:43 AM
I have been enjoying the debate. Even the ad hominem. Even the really stupid arguments! I have decided to chime in. For what its worth. :)

First a little background information. I am a 63 year old white male. A Fundamentalist Christian in the Ministry for over 35 years. I have been Senior Pastor of a church in San Diego for 25 years. I am about as narrowly focused as it is possible to be.

However, politically I am a thorough going libertarian. You leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

On the gay marriage issue: My personal belief is that the practice of homo-sex is a sin. Now, before you get out the tar and feathers let me add that I also believe the practice of hetero-sex, apart from the marriage relationship, is a sin. So, I guess some of you would call me a "homo-phobe" for the first and a "hetero-phobe" for the second conviction? :)

The truth is that I don't fear either. I have certain beliefs based on my system of faith that regulate my opinions on these matters. I am not a "hater" as some have accused, nor, as already stated, am I a "phobe" of any sort.

As to the "gay marriage" issue. It is my belief that the government should have no say in who marries who. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If somebody wants to formalize a relationship for purposes of property disposal, child custody, etc., let them hire a lawyer and draw up a "non-nuptial" agreement (notice the clever word play on "pre-nup" :)).

If people have spiritual beliefs that require them to be united in a formal marriage find a church or religious practitioner who will marry you and go for it. Personally I won't marry same-gender partners. Nor will I marry persons of different faiths. That is what my faith leads me to practice. If a gay couple comes to me and asks me to marry them I refer them to my nephew, a gay man and ordained minister who will gladly formalize their relationship.

With all that said, I will defend to my death every person's right to order their own lives as they see fit (provided, of course, they do not hurt anyone else). Personally I think the whole Prop 8 issue is a waste of time and money. Do as you please with whom you please, and the government can keep its nose out of your business!

As to those who claim that gay marriage will somehow hurt the more traditional mixed marriage (again, note the clever word play. :)) If my marriage were in such poor condition that a gay couple in San Francisco getting married would somehow harm my relationship with my wife I have bigger problems than a silly ballot proposition or a court case! Maybe I should spend less time on this idiotic issue and more time on my own marriage!

Let there be a "civil union" law that applies to all who desire such, and let the rest alone. We ought to be mature enough to work out our own personal arrangements without the governments "help."

Now, can we get back to a discussion of guns, gubernatorial candidates, and who is the best choice for the job?

Personally I, as a "right of center" libertarian on fiscal matters and a "left of center" libertarian on social issues, will probably vote for Jerry Brown. I remember his first time at bat. Even with all the petty politics, he didn't do all that bad a job. And he was a whole lot better than some of his successors, especially the last one!

bwiese
01-28-2010, 11:53 AM
OldTimer,

Thank you for a great write up. The fact that you avoid letting your beliefs trample on others' legal behavior is admirable.

Alaric
01-28-2010, 11:54 AM
Hallelujah Old Timer!

Hopi
01-28-2010, 12:01 PM
I have been enjoying the debate. Even the ad hominem. Even the really stupid arguments! I have decided to chime in. For what its worth. :)

First a little background information. I am a 63 year old white male. A Fundamentalist Christian in the Ministry for over 35 years. I have been Senior Pastor of a church in San Diego for 25 years. I am about as narrowly focused as it is possible to be.

However, politically I am a thorough going libertarian. You leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

On the gay marriage issue: My personal belief is that the practice of homo-sex is a sin. Now, before you get out the tar and feathers let me add that I also believe the practice of hetero-sex, apart from the marriage relationship, is a sin. So, I guess some of you would call me a "homo-phobe" for the first and a "hetero-phobe" for the second conviction? :)

The truth is that I don't fear either. I have certain beliefs based on my system of faith that regulate my opinions on these matters. I am not a "hater" as some have accused, nor, as already stated, am I a "phobe" of any sort.

As to the "gay marriage" issue. It is my belief that the government should have no say in who marries who. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If somebody wants to formalize a relationship for purposes of property disposal, child custody, etc., let them hire a lawyer and draw up a "non-nuptial" agreement (notice the clever word play on "pre-nup" :)).

If people have spiritual beliefs that require them to be united in a formal marriage find a church or religious practitioner who will marry you and go for it. Personally I won't marry same-gender partners. Nor will I marry persons of different faiths. That is what my faith leads me to practice. If a gay couple comes to me and asks me to marry them I refer them to my nephew, a gay man and ordained minister who will gladly formalize their relationship.

With all that said, I will defend to my death every person's right to order their own lives as they see fit (provided, of course, they do not hurt anyone else). Personally I think the whole Prop 8 issue is a waste of time and money. Do as you please with whom you please, and the government can keep its nose out of your business!

As to those who claim that gay marriage will somehow hurt the more traditional mixed marriage (again, note the clever word play. :)) If my marriage were in such poor condition that a gay couple in San Francisco getting married would somehow harm my relationship with my wife I have bigger problems than a silly ballot proposition or a court case! Maybe I should spend less time on this idiotic issue and more time on my own marriage!

Let there be a "civil union" law that applies to all who desire such, and let the rest alone. We ought to be mature enough to work out our own personal arrangements without the governments "help."

Now, can we get back to a discussion of guns, gubernatorial candidates, and who is the best choice for the job?

Personally I, as a "right of center" libertarian on fiscal matters and a "left of center" libertarian on social issues, will probably vote for Jerry Brown. I remember his first time at bat. Even with all the petty politics, he didn't do all that bad a job. And he was a whole lot better than some of his successors, especially the last one!


Proof positive that religion is not the genesis of intolerance.

nat
01-28-2010, 12:09 PM
.............................
I also believe the practice of hetero-sex, apart from the marriage relationship, is a sin......................


No wonder I am an atheist :p hahahaha

All kidding aside, very nice post and quite a refreshing viewpoint from somebody such as yourself.

Cheers!

madmike
01-28-2010, 12:09 PM
...As to those who claim that gay marriage will somehow hurt the more traditional mixed marriage (again, note the clever word play. :)) If my marriage were in such poor condition that a gay couple in San Francisco getting married would somehow harm my relationship with my wife I have bigger problems than a silly ballot proposition or a court case! Maybe I should spend less time on this idiotic issue and more time on my own marriage!

Let there be a "civil union" law that applies to all who desire such, and let the rest alone. We ought to be mature enough to work out our own personal arrangements without the governments "help."

Now, can we get back to a discussion of guns, gubernatorial candidates, and who is the best choice for the job?

Personally I, as a "right of center" libertarian on fiscal matters and a "left of center" libertarian on social issues, will probably vote for Jerry Brown. I remember his first time at bat. Even with all the petty politics, he didn't do all that bad a job. And he was a whole lot better than some of his successors, especially the last one!

I have nothing to add, I just thought this made my point also.

-madmike.

bulgron
01-28-2010, 12:16 PM
First a little background information. I am a 63 year old white male. A Fundamentalist Christian in the Ministry for over 35 years. I have been Senior Pastor of a church in San Diego for 25 years. I am about as narrowly focused as it is possible to be.

However, politically I am a thorough going libertarian. You leave me alone and I will leave you alone.



When someone's faith and beliefs are strong enough, they don't need the support of the secular state to validate their worldview. Hats off to you, sir!

PORCH
01-28-2010, 12:28 PM
I voted yes on prop 8, but could get behind something like Nicki and Old Timer suggested. That is as long as churches etc. had protection from frivelous lawsuits that could damge them financially.

bwiese
01-28-2010, 12:30 PM
I voted yes on prop 8, but could get behind something like Nicki and Old Timer suggested. That is as long as churches etc. had protection from frivelous lawsuits that could damge them financially.

They already do. Religions/churches/services have 1A protection - nobody will make Catholics marry Jews, Baptists marry gays, etc. These issues were speciously raised by the Prop 8 forces, and hold zero water.

Even if a frivolous lawsuit were attempted, so many rights orgs - including the ACLU - would join to protect.

macadamizer
01-28-2010, 12:51 PM
The claim (of others, not you) that there's no comparison between gay, incestuous polygamous marriages just because two of them are illegal is a non-argument. People make laws, people can un-make laws. Your argument that polygamy would complicate various laws is a vast improvement over those who dodge the issue. And yet, polygamy works in other countries. Complexity, in & of itself, doesn't seem to be cause enough to ban the practice. If gay marriage is coming our way, I don't see any reason polygamous marriage won't also be coming our way.

Polygamy works in other countries because the legal system in that country is set up to handle it. Ours simply isn't. And if you don't think complexity alone is enough to ban the practice, I submit to you that you don't probably don't have a good handle on just how complex such a change-over would be.

But presumably, if enough people really, really wanted polygamous marriages, we could make it work. But it would take a tremendous effort to do so. My main point was simply that it isn't an automatic or simple "next step" after homosexual marriage. Not by a long shot.

As for incest, there's the example of Mackenzie & John Phillips. She was 19 when the relationship started. I'm not seeing an argument that it she was in any way 'coerced' into it. So, I'm also not seeing any good argument to keep such things illegal once gay marriage becomes legal.

She was also on drugs the whole time, and the information that has come out really calls into question whether or not she truly consented in any meaningful way to the relationship.

But again, if you really have two consenting adults, that can meaningfully consent to a relationship and do, then they probably should be allowed to marry. But I think it is unlikely that there are enough people to want this to make such a change in the law happen. But if there are, let them try and get the laws changed. That's how we do things in this country.

Here's the point -- every "right" is subject to some limitations in organized society. Every one. If certain limitations are unconstitutional, then they should be overturned. And the way to do that is by either challenging them in court, or getting new legislation passed. Things don't happen automatically. If certain groups think that they are unconstitutionally discriminated against, they can seek redress -- but changing the laws for one group doesn't mean that the laws change for everyone all at once.

As for bestiality, it won't be "marriage" but will it remain illegal? If we allow gay, polygamous & incestuous marriages, what would (what could) the argument be to keep people off (and from under) their pets?

The "right" we are discussing here is with respect to marriage. You don't have any "right" to marry property (which is at best all a pet or animal is), and you don't have a "right" to have sex with your property. Having sex with property has never been found to be a fundamental liberty in this country. Presumably, though, if enough people thought it was important that they be allowed to have sex with animals, they could seek to have the law changed in this regard.

But this has nothing to do with marriage of any sort, and is only brought up to muddy the arguments. There is no right to "marry" property.

Mind, I am in no way in favor of such things. But (to repeat what I said before) if gay marriage comes the other two are likely to come as well. That being the case, thought as to how to react should be taken up.

The only reason they are brought up when homosexual marriage is brought up is to tar homosexual marriage. Period. One does not rationally have anything to do with the others.

Well, I certainly believe that pols are all the same. My support for JB is conditioned on the fact that he's merely the best of a bad lot.

But I like the term "DINO" & wonder how I didn't think of that. Its only completely obvious, after all. In any event, I like the term, given how old fashioned I am. :)


The Raisuli

I agree with you here completely.

Roadrunner
01-28-2010, 12:57 PM
I have been enjoying the debate. Even the ad hominem. Even the really stupid arguments! I have decided to chime in. For what its worth. :)

First a little background information. I am a 63 year old white male. A Fundamentalist Christian in the Ministry for over 35 years. I have been Senior Pastor of a church in San Diego for 25 years. I am about as narrowly focused as it is possible to be.

However, politically I am a thorough going libertarian. You leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

On the gay marriage issue: My personal belief is that the practice of homo-sex is a sin. Now, before you get out the tar and feathers let me add that I also believe the practice of hetero-sex, apart from the marriage relationship, is a sin. So, I guess some of you would call me a "homo-phobe" for the first and a "hetero-phobe" for the second conviction? :)

The truth is that I don't fear either. I have certain beliefs based on my system of faith that regulate my opinions on these matters. I am not a "hater" as some have accused, nor, as already stated, am I a "phobe" of any sort.

As to the "gay marriage" issue. It is my belief that the government should have no say in who marries who. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If somebody wants to formalize a relationship for purposes of property disposal, child custody, etc., let them hire a lawyer and draw up a "non-nuptial" agreement (notice the clever word play on "pre-nup" :)).

If people have spiritual beliefs that require them to be united in a formal marriage find a church or religious practitioner who will marry you and go for it. Personally I won't marry same-gender partners. Nor will I marry persons of different faiths. That is what my faith leads me to practice. If a gay couple comes to me and asks me to marry them I refer them to my nephew, a gay man and ordained minister who will gladly formalize their relationship.

With all that said, I will defend to my death every person's right to order their own lives as they see fit (provided, of course, they do not hurt anyone else). Personally I think the whole Prop 8 issue is a waste of time and money. Do as you please with whom you please, and the government can keep its nose out of your business!

As to those who claim that gay marriage will somehow hurt the more traditional mixed marriage (again, note the clever word play. :)) If my marriage were in such poor condition that a gay couple in San Francisco getting married would somehow harm my relationship with my wife I have bigger problems than a silly ballot proposition or a court case! Maybe I should spend less time on this idiotic issue and more time on my own marriage!

Let there be a "civil union" law that applies to all who desire such, and let the rest alone. We ought to be mature enough to work out our own personal arrangements without the governments "help."

Now, can we get back to a discussion of guns, gubernatorial candidates, and who is the best choice for the job?

Personally I, as a "right of center" libertarian on fiscal matters and a "left of center" libertarian on social issues, will probably vote for Jerry Brown. I remember his first time at bat. Even with all the petty politics, he didn't do all that bad a job. And he was a whole lot better than some of his successors, especially the last one!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44229&stc=1&d=1264712163

Good write up.

Old Timer
01-28-2010, 2:19 PM
OldTimer,

Thank you for a great write up. The fact that you avoid letting your beliefs trample on others' legal behavior is admirable.Thank you Bill. I tolerate everyone except . . . well, except lawyers! :D:D:D

haveyourmile
01-28-2010, 2:48 PM
Great post, Old Timer. Kudos to you for having a strong belief system, and at the same time keeping your personal views out of government.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-28-2010, 4:23 PM
They already do. Religions/churches/services have 1A protection - nobody will make Catholics marry Jews, Baptists marry gays, etc. These issues were speciously raised by the Prop 8 forces, and hold zero water.

Even if a frivolous lawsuit were attempted, so many rights orgs - including the ACLU - would join to protect.

Like I already said, it did not happen in the other states that already have gay marriage laws. The hype about the lawsuits against churches was mostly a fabrication, it's intended purpose to scare worked.

Theseus
01-28-2010, 6:23 PM
Mr. Wiese and Theseus and others - thanks for weighing in on this. You guys are right on. I don't weigh in much, but I fell I need to here. IMHO, the fundamental role of government is to assure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental right for all citizens. This includes who marries who, what God(s) you pay homage to, etc. etc.

Honestly, I love the talk on this forum about fundamentals rights and freedoms. I do have to wonder about those who, on one hand demand their rights, then on the other, feel strongly that the rights of others should be abridged because they don't agree with their lifestyle ("My rights are important, but not yours."). My suggestion - get a life, and let others have theirs.

To be fair, it seems to me that others here are not suggesting "rights for me and not for thee" as much the fear that allowing them the right would infringe on theirs, and thus should not be permitted.

I believe however that their fears are misguided and without basis.

JohnJW
01-28-2010, 6:50 PM
First a little background information. I am a 63 year old white male. A Fundamentalist Christian in the Ministry for over 35 years. I have been Senior Pastor of a church in San Diego for 25 years. I am about as narrowly focused as it is possible to be.

However, politically I am a thorough going libertarian. You leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

On the gay marriage issue: My personal belief is that the practice of homo-sex is a sin. Now, before you get out the tar and feathers let me add that I also believe the practice of hetero-sex, apart from the marriage relationship, is a sin. So, I guess some of you would call me a "homo-phobe" for the first and a "hetero-phobe" for the second conviction? :)

If people have spiritual beliefs that require them to be united in a formal marriage find a church or religious practitioner who will marry you and go for it. Personally I won't marry same-gender partners. Nor will I marry persons of different faiths. That is what my faith leads me to practice. If a gay couple comes to me and asks me to marry them I refer them to my nephew, a gay man and ordained minister who will gladly formalize their relationship.


Wow, you really are an "Old Timer" conservative. Too bad we don't get to see more conservatives like you. Most of the conservatives I see in politics these days are the more "progressive" big government conservatives that likes to call others RINO. . . .

As a somewhat atheist, reading your post made me think, "Hey, he's a minister.. . . this church thing can't be that bad" :)

RWxtremist
01-28-2010, 9:20 PM
Well as a true Libertarian, I am sick of having to choose between authoritarian Republicans and nanny-state Democrats. While Brown is not perfect, a pro-gun Democrat is a breath of fresh air.

Don't get too excited. Diane Feinstein also supports the 2nd Amendment.

"I appreciate that there are many law abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting and sport in a safe and effective manner and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun for such purposes."

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=251016&highlight=feinstein

dfletcher
01-28-2010, 10:42 PM
Don't get too excited. Diane Feinstein also supports the 2nd Amendment.

"I appreciate that there are many law abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting and sport in a safe and effective manner and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun for such purposes."

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=251016&highlight=feinstein

I wonder how folks would react if she said this?

"I appreciate that there are many newspaper publishers who use their property to say nice things about me and the Democratic Party in a polite and friendly manner and I support an individual's First Amendment right to publish a newspaper for such purposes."

Such garbage.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-29-2010, 5:54 AM
Polygamy works in other countries because the legal system in that country is set up to handle it. Ours simply isn't. And if you don't think complexity alone is enough to ban the practice, I submit to you that you don't probably don't have a good handle on just how complex such a change-over would be.

But presumably, if enough people really, really wanted polygamous marriages, we could make it work. But it would take a tremendous effort to do so. My main point was simply that it isn't an automatic or simple "next step" after homosexual marriage. Not by a long shot.



She was also on drugs the whole time, and the information that has come out really calls into question whether or not she truly consented in any meaningful way to the relationship.

But again, if you really have two consenting adults, that can meaningfully consent to a relationship and do, then they probably should be allowed to marry. But I think it is unlikely that there are enough people to want this to make such a change in the law happen. But if there are, let them try and get the laws changed. That's how we do things in this country.

Here's the point -- every "right" is subject to some limitations in organized society. Every one. If certain limitations are unconstitutional, then they should be overturned. And the way to do that is by either challenging them in court, or getting new legislation passed. Things don't happen automatically. If certain groups think that they are unconstitutionally discriminated against, they can seek redress -- but changing the laws for one group doesn't mean that the laws change for everyone all at once.



The "right" we are discussing here is with respect to marriage. You don't have any "right" to marry property (which is at best all a pet or animal is), and you don't have a "right" to have sex with your property. Having sex with property has never been found to be a fundamental liberty in this country. Presumably, though, if enough people thought it was important that they be allowed to have sex with animals, they could seek to have the law changed in this regard.

But this has nothing to do with marriage of any sort, and is only brought up to muddy the arguments. There is no right to "marry" property.



The only reason they are brought up when homosexual marriage is brought up is to tar homosexual marriage. Period. One does not rationally have anything to do with the others.



I agree with you here completely.


I never said that anything would happen "automatically." But, once the main argument against straight marriage is tossed, there's nothing really to stop polygamous & incestuous marriages from coming along sooner or later. You yourself say here that you don't have a problem with incestuous marriage. Many have no problem with polygamy, & not just in Utah either. My point is that while it might take effort, if gay marriage comes, the other two will most likely come also. That makes the other two legitimate matters of discussion now. It isn't a matter of me trying to "muddy the waters" at all. Its me recognizing that the tactics we gunnies are using ("low hanging fruit" & "baby steps") are approaches anyone can use. While those pushing gay marriage aren't the ones pushing for polygamy & incest, there are groups who do. You can be sure they're sitting, watching & taking notes.


The Raisuli

bonusweb
06-08-2010, 12:28 AM
>By not supporting equal rights for all people and only recognizing marriage between a man >and woman, the state is saying what is morally right.

First if possible Government should not be involved in Marriage at all. If that is not possible then I think for the sake a stable society government should not be endorsing anyone's sexual preferences. You can call them sexual orientation if you want but then people can call every fetish out there the same thing, S & M, foot fetish you name it. Is a fetish, sexual orientation? (maybe they were born that way) Then you are back to the old nature vs nurture argument. Comparing fetish behavior to race or gender is disingenuous. As you can have two identical twins with different sexual preferences, but not of different race or gender.

If you look at the roman empire, it started off being a family/modesty based society, and toward the end became and everyone for themselves depraved society. So while I think that gays have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do not think it is in the interest of society to promote the lifestyle or any other sexual fetish. The pursuit sexual fetishes should not be the main concern of any culture or society. I understand that pleasure is important, but it still should remain a personal matter. Others that are not interested in your fetishes, such as parents of susceptible youth(basically anyone under 18) Should be allowed to live with people promoting any type of sexual fetish.

Trying to pose gay marriage as a right of equal protection makes me think again that the government should not be involved. Since no protection/involvement means equal protection. Then if gays without the power and force of government helping nor hindering them could form gay friendly churches and then get a non governmental religious marriage as they see fit.

thayne
06-08-2010, 12:56 AM
I wonder how folks would react if she said this?

"I appreciate that there are many newspaper publishers who use their property to say nice things about me and the Democratic Party in a polite and friendly manner and I support an individual's First Amendment right to publish a newspaper for such purposes."

Such garbage.
except the second amendment isnt about sports or hunting LOL

socalblue
06-08-2010, 1:27 AM
I think I will vote for Jerry. He seems to make sense to me, from what I have seen, and as AG he has been very accessible.

As far as the financial situation in California, I think that has a lot to do with out constitutional right to initiative.

We have gone and created propositions, that seem to make sense taken individually (in some cases), but aggregated have had a paralyzing effect on our economy.

There are so many mandates on what can be spent and where, when we need to re-allocate spending we are at a loss. This coupled with a completely ineffective legislature has given us a huge problem, that I doubt anyone will be able to fix.

I mean, come on, we have the 7th or 8th (have not checked in a while) largest economy in the world. We should be able to handle this.



Exactly on target. Our #1 problem is not the Governor or AG but the Legislature. That's where we need to make the changes!

Sutcliffe
06-08-2010, 1:58 AM
The best thing I can say about him is he's flexible and been around politics long enough to eke out a pretty comfortable living for himself.
He was embroiled in a CCW Corruption scandal about a decade ago that featured his close friend and roomie getting issued a CCW(Oakland PD I think) despite a propensity for domestic violence. It's been a while, but I think Jim March had something about it on his CCW pages.

The governor can do what, exactly, to right our sinking ship? Will he be willing to toss gun issues under the bus to get other things he wants done from a very anti gun legislature? He's a career politician.

CalNRA
06-08-2010, 2:54 AM
So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs.

what are these "AW"s you speak of?

And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.

hmm...not so subtle there.

Ding126
06-08-2010, 7:36 AM
I thought this was a forum to promote gun rights.:hammer:

Uxi
06-09-2010, 4:00 PM
Women getting the right to vote and the abolition of slavery were legally and properly changed in the Constitution.

Homosexuality shouldn't be exempt from that requirement. If the Left wants to condone deviant sexuality, let them properly get an Amendment to that effect.

The RTKBA is also in the Constitution (via the 2nd Amendment) and the Left should have to get an Amendment done to outlaw it.

BigDogatPlay
06-09-2010, 4:17 PM
Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

Point of historical order.... it was "Bull" Connor. No 's' at the end.

Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor)(July 11, 1897, Selma, Alabama, USA – March 10, 1973) was a Democratic Party politician and police official from the city of Birmingham, Alabama, during the American Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.

The government should get out of the marriage business. It had no business defining it in the first place.... other than to control who can and can not get married.

Marriage is, at it's core, a religious institution and should be governed by the belief of the church that sanctions each particular union.

Lulfas
06-09-2010, 4:18 PM
Homosexuality shouldn't be exempt from that requirement. If the Left wants to condone deviant sexuality, let them properly get an Amendment to that effect.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Barkoff
06-09-2010, 4:29 PM
Does anyone know where to get a copy of the brief Brown wrote in favor of Heller? I would like to show that to Whitman's political adviser.

Uxi
06-09-2010, 4:36 PM
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sure. My reply was in context to what I specifically quoted.

To you, I'd say that homosexuals have the exact same rights: to marry a person of the opposite sex. Just the same, from a historical context, I'd argue marriage has only peripherally been about love and the same wrt sex.

But then, I'd also debate that 20th century conceptions of homosexuality are without historical precedent. Rome? Always considered scandalous and an offense against pietas, if not dignitas. It wasn't your average plebeian or prole attending the orgies, it was the elite who felt they were above social convention. Their attitude is clear by implication of scandal when used as part of the rhetoric to inflame public opinion against the accused. Greece? Even the Greek city-state boy-lovers still took wives. Spartiates snuck out to get it on with their women and beget their children. Who you get your jollies from has nothing to do with the conception of marriage. The idea of marriage as love is, in fact, relatively modern. You could make great arguments for laws regarding the streamlining of power of attorney and next of kin, but make a horrible attempt at over-secularization that the Founders did not intend. The Founders believed in a representative democracy that reflected the common social mores of their citizenry. Just the same, they provided mechanisms so that it might change: Amendment.

What the homosexual lobby wants is a change in social mores and a public affirmation that their deviant lifestyle is just as good. It's not. They've got "tolerance" but want more.

lioneaglegriffin
06-09-2010, 4:50 PM
Does anyone know where to get a copy of the brief Brown wrote in favor of Heller? I would like to show that to Whitman's political adviser.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/California-NRA_v._Chicago_Cert_Amicus.pdf