Prop H and Prop 8

[nicki]

Just a observation about prop 8 and the now repealed Prop H, San Fran Handgun ban.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

[M. D. Van Norman]

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

I call it ideological inconsistency. Freedom is an all-or-nothing affair.

[BlackRifle24]

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman

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.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman

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.

[MrTuffPaws]

Just a reminder boys and girls. Freedom is not only what you approve of.

[Crazed_SS]

Originally Posted by nicki

Just a observation about prop 8 and the now repealed Prop H, San Fran Handgun ban.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

[Meplat]

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.

[PonchoTA]

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman

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.

[Matt C]

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.

[PIRATE14]

Well....I should be able to marry as many women as I want....it's my right....

[hill billy]

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

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.

[dw33b]

Originally Posted by PIRATE14

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.

[Matt C]

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.

[DRM6000]

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.

[DRM6000]

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

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?

[PIRATE14]

Originally Posted by DRM6000

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....

[bbguns44]

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.

[DRM6000]

Originally Posted by bbguns44

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.

[bigmike82]

"Indeed, where will it end.... "
Just like the pro 2nd amendment movement will result in atom bombs for everyone, right?

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman

Freedom is an all-or-nothing affair.

No, it isn't.

[tombinghamthegreat]

Originally Posted by Pvt. Cowboy

No, it isn't.

How so?

[sigsauer887]

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?

[bigmike82]

That doesn't matter.

If you believe in Liberty, you should believe it for everyone, not simply those whom you agree with.

[PIRATE14]

Originally Posted by bigmike82

"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.....

[bigmike82]

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."

[Captain Evilstomper]

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

[tombinghamthegreat]

Originally Posted by bigmike82

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.

[eta34]

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.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by bbguns44

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?

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by DRM6000

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.

[movie zombie]

Originally Posted by nicki

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

[bigmike82]

"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.

[nobody_special]

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.

[E Pluribus Unum]

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.

[bigmike82]

"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.

[unusedusername]

Sigh....

[aileron]

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...

[chico.cm]

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.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by bigmike82

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.

[bigmike82]

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?