Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-24-2008, 2:39 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,099
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Prop H and Prop 8

Just a observation about prop 8 and the now repealed Prop H, San Fran Handgun ban.

Both involved voter intiatives where the rights of a unpopular minority were put up for a public vote and a majority of the voters voted to strip the minority group of their rights.

Prop H got shot down by the courts, we still don't know about prop 8.

Regardless of what you think about prop 8, a few things it puts into the public area of public debate:

1. Rights deserve to be protected from violation by a simple majority vote.
2. Equality under law, equal access and equal treatment for government licenses is a right.

No on 8 advocates have been hammering the public about equal treatment under the law when it comes to government licenses.

It will be easier for us to make the equality under the law stick on gun issues, specifically CCW issues.

The No on 8 will be especially useful for us to help transcend the gun issue to a rights issue in gun hostile counties.

Many of the No on 8 people in San Fran had no issue in voting to strip gun owners of their rights.

It will be poetic justice when their efforts will substantially aid in getting CCW all across not just California, but the rest of the country where we still have government promoted VD (Victim Disarmanent) policies".

VD can be more than a nuisance, it can cause serious bodily harm, even death.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-24-2008, 2:49 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,158
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

And many gun owners proudly voted to take rights away from homosexuals.

I call it ideological inconsistency. Freedom is an all-or-nothing affair.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-24-2008, 2:56 PM
BlackRifle24's Avatar
BlackRifle24 BlackRifle24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Roseville
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
And many gun owners proudly voted to take rights away from homosexuals.
You literally took the words out of my mouth. People need to learn to vote in favor of freedom of choice even if it's a choice they wouldn't make themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-24-2008, 3:00 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
And many gun owners proudly voted to take rights away from homosexuals.

I call it ideological inconsistency.
Ditto. I voted "no" on 8 for that reason. In fact, it was swept to victory by the tide of Obama voters. I realize a lot of religious conservatives also voted "yes" on 8, but many non-religious conservatives voted no on it.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-24-2008, 3:08 PM
MrTuffPaws MrTuffPaws is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,167
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just a reminder boys and girls. Freedom is not only what you approve of.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-24-2008, 3:21 PM
Crazed_SS's Avatar
Crazed_SS Crazed_SS is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,332
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Just a observation about prop 8 and the now repealed Prop H, San Fran Handgun ban.

Both involved voter intiatives where the rights of a unpopular minority were put up for a public vote and a majority of the voters voted to strip the minority group of their rights.

Prop H got shot down by the courts, we still don't know about prop 8.

Regardless of what you think about prop 8, a few things it puts into the public area of public debate:

1. Rights deserve to be protected from violation by a simple majority vote.
2. Equality under law, equal access and equal treatment for government licenses is a right.

No on 8 advocates have been hammering the public about equal treatment under the law when it comes to government licenses.

It will be easier for us to make the equality under the law stick on gun issues, specifically CCW issues.

The No on 8 will be especially useful for us to help transcend the gun issue to a rights issue in gun hostile counties.

Many of the No on 8 people in San Fran had no issue in voting to strip gun owners of their rights.

It will be poetic justice when their efforts will substantially aid in getting CCW all across not just California, but the rest of the country where we still have government promoted VD (Victim Disarmanent) policies".

VD can be more than a nuisance, it can cause serious bodily harm, even death.

Nicki
Careful.. I made this same argument 6 months ago..
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...Prop+H&page=15 (see post 147)

Notice that thread mushroomed into like 50 pages
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-24-2008, 3:28 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else, including homosexuals.

I also have the same right to marry as any one else including homosexuals. I am a male and I have the right to marry any female who is of age, is not already married and will have me. That is the same right any male has including homosexuals.

If a man decides that another man is his mate of choice that does not change the equality of the thing. I still cannot marry a man and nether can he.

If I decide that nerve gas is my weapon of choice I still cannot walk around with a canister of nerve gas on my hip and nether can he.

Sorry, some animals are not more equal than others.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:10 PM
PonchoTA's Avatar
PonchoTA PonchoTA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ!! I'm freeeeeee!
Posts: 2,332
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
And many gun owners proudly voted to take rights away from homosexuals.

I call it ideological inconsistency. Freedom is an all-or-nothing affair.
What rights were being taken away?



Just because the AG reworded the title doesn't make it so.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:16 PM
Matt C's Avatar
Matt C Matt C is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,152
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

The issue is that while keeping and bearing arms is something we either have the right to do, or we don't, getting a marriage license from the state is less clearly a right that exists to be taken away. Some would say it's clearly not a right, gay or otherwise, and I would tend to be in that group.
__________________
I do not provide legal services or practice law (yet).

The troublemaker formerly known as Blackwater OPS.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:17 PM
PIRATE14 PIRATE14 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,027
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Well....I should be able to marry as many women as I want....it's my right....
__________________
CHECKOUT...http://cwstactical.com FOR ALL YOUR CALIFORNIA LEGAL AR-AK-HK RIFLES and BUILDS...

CWS....WE CAN GO HOT ANYTIME....

CALIFORNICATION AT IT'S BEST...

BRD....BLACK RIFLE DISEASE.......SPREAD IT!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:19 PM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,613
iTrader: 143 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS View Post
The issue is that while keeping and bearing arms is something we either have the right to do, or we don't, getting a marriage license from the state is less clearly a right that exists to be taken away. Some would say it's clearly not a right, gay or otherwise, and I would tend to be in that group.
As would I. This is apples and oranges and frankly I am a little tired of this drum being beaten.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:25 PM
dw33b's Avatar
dw33b dw33b is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Bay, CA
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIRATE14 View Post
Well....I should be able to marry as many women as I want....it's my right....
If it's between consenting adults why not? Why should the government step in and tell you who you can or can't marry? Although if you want more than one wife you just might be clinically insane.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:36 PM
Matt C's Avatar
Matt C Matt C is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,152
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

A "right", in the context we normally use it in, could be defined as: "something the government is not allowed to stop you from doing, or something the government is not allowed to force you to do". If you can say to yourself, if the government did not exist I would be able to do this, or I would not be required to do this, you MAY be thinking of a "right".

If you realize that if the government did not exist, you would no longer be able to do thing that you are thinking of (say, get a welfare check for example) than it CANNOT be a right.

I hope this clears things up.
__________________
I do not provide legal services or practice law (yet).

The troublemaker formerly known as Blackwater OPS.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:38 PM
DRM6000's Avatar
DRM6000 DRM6000 is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,101
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

i fail to understand how marriage or the ability to marry is a right. if two persons of the same sex decide to be with other romantically or take one another as a companion, that is their right whether or not anyone agrees with it.

i think legislation that allows marriage for homosexuals is a slippery slope. where will it end? what if a person wants to marry a sibling? or what about polygamy? what about a pet? some places define pet owners as guardians therefore making pets as more than just property.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:41 PM
DRM6000's Avatar
DRM6000 DRM6000 is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,101
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS View Post
A "right", in the context we normally use it in, could be defined as: "something the government is not allowed to stop you from doing, or something the government is not allowed to force you to do". If you can say to yourself, if the government did not exist I would be able to do this, or I would not be required to do this, you MAY be thinking of a "right".

If you realize that if the government did not exist, you would no longer be able to do thing that you are thinking of (say, get a welfare check for example) than it CANNOT be a right.

I hope this clears things up.
so if the .gov did not exist, there would not be marriage? marriage is just official recognition of the union of a couple right?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:54 PM
PIRATE14 PIRATE14 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,027
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM6000 View Post
i think legislation that allows marriage for homosexuals is a slippery slope. where will it end? what if a person wants to marry a sibling? or what about polygamy? what about a pet? some places define pet owners as guardians therefore making pets as more than just property.
Indeed, where will it end....
__________________
CHECKOUT...http://cwstactical.com FOR ALL YOUR CALIFORNIA LEGAL AR-AK-HK RIFLES and BUILDS...

CWS....WE CAN GO HOT ANYTIME....

CALIFORNICATION AT IT'S BEST...

BRD....BLACK RIFLE DISEASE.......SPREAD IT!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2008, 5:57 PM
bbguns44 bbguns44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 955
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I don't get why I can't marry 3 girls at once & the no on 8 crowd
seems pretty opposed to my doing that. Just think how long Hugh
Hefner has been suffering.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-2008, 6:16 PM
DRM6000's Avatar
DRM6000 DRM6000 is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,101
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbguns44 View Post
I don't get why I can't marry 3 girls at once & the no on 8 crowd
seems pretty opposed to my doing that. Just think how long Hugh
Hefner has been suffering.

do you really want three alimony payments? how about thrice the nagging? just settle for three girlfriends or at least one very understanding wife. maybe the no-on-8 crowd are trying to save you.

Last edited by DRM6000; 11-24-2008 at 9:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-24-2008, 6:23 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"Indeed, where will it end.... "
Just like the pro 2nd amendment movement will result in atom bombs for everyone, right?
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-24-2008, 6:41 PM
Pvt. Cowboy Pvt. Cowboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,688
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Freedom is an all-or-nothing affair.
No, it isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-24-2008, 7:04 PM
tombinghamthegreat's Avatar
tombinghamthegreat tombinghamthegreat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,786
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pvt. Cowboy View Post
No, it isn't.
How so?
__________________
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." Ron Paul
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by forumguy View Post
The same way they enforce all the rest of the BS laws. Only criminals are exempt, while the honest obey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Sometimes I think the function of Calguns is half to refute bad info from gunshops and half to refute bad info from DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-24-2008, 7:16 PM
sigsauer887 sigsauer887 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 743
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

But aren't most homosexuals liberals who hate guns? I understand there is the minority group who are supportive of the second amendment, but don't you think they would vote to strip our rights in a hurry if they had the chance?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-24-2008, 7:57 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

That doesn't matter.

If you believe in Liberty, you should believe it for everyone, not simply those whom you agree with.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-24-2008, 8:03 PM
PIRATE14 PIRATE14 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,027
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
"Indeed, where will it end.... "
Just like the pro 2nd amendment movement will result in atom bombs for everyone, right?
Atom bomb....prolly a destructive device....might need a special permit for that.....
__________________
CHECKOUT...http://cwstactical.com FOR ALL YOUR CALIFORNIA LEGAL AR-AK-HK RIFLES and BUILDS...

CWS....WE CAN GO HOT ANYTIME....

CALIFORNICATION AT IT'S BEST...

BRD....BLACK RIFLE DISEASE.......SPREAD IT!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-24-2008, 8:06 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Not the point.

I was comparing the ludicrous statement that "allowing gay marriage will lead to men marrying goats" to the ludicrous statement that "allowing people to own evil puppy killing assault rifles will lead to people owning nukes."
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-24-2008, 8:32 PM
Captain Evilstomper's Avatar
Captain Evilstomper Captain Evilstomper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near sacramento
Posts: 776
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

if the .gov did not exist then the civil institution of marriage would not exist, it would be solely a church affair. and since we have separation of church and state... now that being said, i don't care who marries who.
what does it mean though if they say that gay couples can marry but then make it cost prohibitive for anyone to do so. or if marriage licenses were a 'may-issue' type of thing. as in 'we may issue you a license if you are famous or prominent in society.'
in the second case, the gay rights cause would be up in arms about it, ok discuss
__________________
Reason has seldom failed us because it has seldom been tried

Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion
-- Edward Abbey
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-24-2008, 8:44 PM
tombinghamthegreat's Avatar
tombinghamthegreat tombinghamthegreat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,786
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
That doesn't matter.

If you believe in Liberty, you should believe it for everyone, not simply those whom you agree with.
+1 well put.
__________________
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." Ron Paul
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by forumguy View Post
The same way they enforce all the rest of the BS laws. Only criminals are exempt, while the honest obey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Sometimes I think the function of Calguns is half to refute bad info from gunshops and half to refute bad info from DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-24-2008, 8:50 PM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,767
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

It pretty much comes down to this: Is marriage a right? I don't believe it is. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is a right.

I support all other rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Despite being a conservative Christian, I believe in the right to say pretty much whatever you want, and practice whatever religion you want, no matter how disgusting I find it.

I think homosexuality is wrong. I believe in the Bible, which is clear on the subject. I do not, however, believe that homosexuality should be illegal or banned. When considered Biblically, homosexuality is considered a sin, no worse than heterosexual lust, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-24-2008, 9:06 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,671
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbguns44 View Post
I don't get why I can't marry 3 girls at once & the no on 8 crowd
seems pretty opposed to my doing that. Just think how long Hugh
Hefner has been suffering.

Why the heck would any man want to be married to 3 women - unless he also has 3 whutzits?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-24-2008, 9:08 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM6000 View Post
so if the .gov did not exist, there would not be marriage?
That's really the question, and in this case, marriage as we know it requires gov't approval. It's a union recognised by the couple, society, and the state.

Many Libertarians answer the whole question by saying, gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. That would be a simple solution to it. Unfortunately it would be complex to do that, because we have so much law tied up with marriage status, and it would cause a lot of problems for Americans in other countries which require a state-recognised marriage.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-24-2008, 9:14 PM
movie zombie's Avatar
movie zombie movie zombie is offline
Cat-in-a-Box
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SCruz Mountains
Posts: 12,297
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Just a observation about prop 8 and the now repealed Prop H, San Fran Handgun ban.

Both involved voter intiatives where the rights of a unpopular minority were put up for a public vote and a majority of the voters voted to strip the minority group of their rights.

Prop H got shot down by the courts, we still don't know about prop 8.

Regardless of what you think about prop 8, a few things it puts into the public area of public debate:

1. Rights deserve to be protected from violation by a simple majority vote.
2. Equality under law, equal access and equal treatment for government licenses is a right.

No on 8 advocates have been hammering the public about equal treatment under the law when it comes to government licenses.

It will be easier for us to make the equality under the law stick on gun issues, specifically CCW issues.

The No on 8 will be especially useful for us to help transcend the gun issue to a rights issue in gun hostile counties.

Many of the No on 8 people in San Fran had no issue in voting to strip gun owners of their rights.

It will be poetic justice when their efforts will substantially aid in getting CCW all across not just California, but the rest of the country where we still have government promoted VD (Victim Disarmanent) policies".

VD can be more than a nuisance, it can cause serious bodily harm, even death.

Nicki
nicely presented, nicki. if will be ironic if gunowners are forced to cite precident of an overturned prop 8 in defense of their guns.

movie zombie
__________________

"Her hands, her comfort, her confidence, her choice.", Mr K re buy a gun for a woman.

Gun Control:
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-24-2008, 9:47 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"I believe in the Bible"

EDIT: Nevermind. This'll turn into another discussion on the perceived ...ahem...shall we say inconsistencies...of modern Christian beliefs. I'm going to stand by my other statement regarding liberties, and leave it at that.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-24-2008, 9:52 PM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
It pretty much comes down to this: Is marriage a right? I don't believe it is.
There are a number of problems with that... (seriously, I'd find it very disturbing if one did not have a right to marry the person of their choice). First and foremost, what is marriage if not a choice to associate with another person, and is that not protected by the freedom of assembly? Second, marriage (as an institution, though perhaps not government-regulated) existed at the founding of this country; as such, an argument could be made that it may be protected by the 9th amendment. And when the government provides tax and other benefits based on marriage, the equal protection clause could be of import...

This is the civil-rights movement of the 21st century. Arguments that only relationships between a man and a woman may qualify as marriage may be considered analogous to the Black Codes or Jim Crow laws; the concepts are not substantially different.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2
The penal code reads like a collaboration of a Salvador Dali inspired edition of Mad magazine and Monty Python Goes to Law School on Acid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:00 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The issue is the sexual perversion that is homosexuality being associated with a religious ceremony.

The Christian religion is centered around marriage and procreation. It is a core belief that homosexuality is an abomination and should not be treated as acceptable in the church, which includes church functions like marriage.

Let them have equal rights; let them enjoy the freedoms that everyone else enjoys. Just call it something different.

Everyone argues that blacks or mexicans are equal. Under the law, they are. Under religion they are. To call them something different does not discriminate. We call blacks black, mexicans mexican, and whites white. We are what we are and equality is not predicated on all labels being the same.

Because we label gay marriage "civil union" and heterosexual marriage "marriage" does not mean they are not equal; they are simply called different things.

Quite honestly, I do not feel that the government has any right to get involved with a religious ceremony at all. Today it is the status quo to get married in a church, and then run down to the courthouse to "make it official". Marriage is not a civil contract sworn to and certified by a judge, it is a joining of man and woman with God. The government has no right to be involved at all. It should be completely free and require no license.

Let religion handle "marriage" and let the courts handle "civil unions". That is my take on it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:05 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"The issue is the sexual perversion that is homosexuality being associated with a religious ceremony."
That's where we disagree. It's not a religious ceremony anymore if the state grants it. And as long as the government controls the institution of marriage, it should give it out to gays as well.

If the pro 8 people focused their attention on getting government out of our lives, rather than what they were trying to do with 8, we'd all be much better off.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:19 PM
unusedusername's Avatar
unusedusername unusedusername is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between SJ and SF
Posts: 3,198
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default



Sigh....
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
-Speaking about the Oikos mass shooting in Oakland.

Quote:
With an assault weapon you just hold the trigger back and it goes blup,blup,blup
-Michael Bloomberg confused about the difference between a machine gun and a rifle, ABC News Nightline 12/21/12
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:44 PM
aileron's Avatar
aileron aileron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PRK
Posts: 3,250
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Government giving out a license to marry, does not make a right. But denying someone a license to marry well now that something else.

The crack up is people believe you need to have the government honor your marriage with a license. Okay... but all they're really doing is, joining the couples property between the two of them, and giving out tax breaks.

So how is it that a marriage by the church before your chosen god is related to the government forcing you to get a license to enjoin your property?

What if you don't believe in god?

What if you don't believe in government interference in marriage?

So in order to get married, we have to A. Believe in God and follow what is written in currently accepted faiths, and B. Believe the government shall regulate that union via a license and legal change of status?

Even though we know people don't believe in God and yet they get married. But we will follow the most accepted faiths precepts to guide governments action on issuing a license to couples regardless of faith? Even though, they are not related.

Strange...
__________________
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:45 PM
chico.cm's Avatar
chico.cm chico.cm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 623
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Be very careful what you all advocate for--you'll most certainly get it. And that's the rub.
Most demands for "equal treatment" end up being "special treatment". Then, of course, it's "protected class" demands, followed by the constant harrassment of those who don't worship the ground that the "protected class" walks on...
The more the .gov meddles, the more they screw up.
Let's be clear: CA NEVER allowed same sex persons to marry. Prop 22 just reinforced the law with 14 clarifying words. That was un-done by the CA Supreme court. Prop 8 is a redo of prop 22, with one change. Prop 8 actually changes the constitution.
If we remember from civics class, courts interpret the law, not legislate. When the CA Supreme court invalidated prop 22, they legislated something in that was NEVER allowed prior to Prop 22 coming to a vote.
However, with Prop 8 amending the State Constitution, this is no longer a State Court matter, but a Federal one. State Supreme Courts do not have the authority to hear cases that change the State Constitution. By challenging prop 8, the left has opened the door for the SCOTUS to hear the case. I highly doubt that was the anticipated outcome of the "no H8" group.
__________________
Single issue voting and the 'lesser-of-two-evils' mentality is what got us into this mess!

Originally Posted by Stormfeather
"Seriously, some people need to put the keyboard down and go out in the sunshine."
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:58 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
That's where we disagree. It's not a religious ceremony anymore if the state grants it. And as long as the government controls the institution of marriage, it should give it out to gays as well.
Well, as I said, the government has no business licensing marriage. It would be like licensing baptism, or licensing ministry.

That being said... they do license it. So as such... I feel compelled to protect the sanctity of it even though I do not agree with their right to control it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-24-2008, 11:07 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

How is there any sanctity if the government controls it?

Sanctity is a religious thing; the government can't control that. So if you want to control the sanctity of marriage, do so in your own life, and let the gays do what they want.

What did Jesus say about casting stones and removing motes again?
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:48 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.