Shotgun News Followup about recent Pink Pistols column

[QQQ]

CA Prop 8 passed as a unique event at one point in time - the concurrent election was for the first Black president in a transitional and polarizing time and brought out a bunch of black voters who didn't like it on top of Obama bringing out the religious Right as well as the "freedom Right" people like myself.

Sentiments/polling show that Prop 8 wouldn't pass today in CA.

Furthermore, the LGBT/liberty crowd was a little self-over-confident that CA wasn't backwards enough to pass this, and didn't ramp up their fundraising til late - and they weren't aware til late of the illegal conduct of the Mormon Church dumping money in either.

If Prop 8 were to come up again now, I'd expect major funding by large tech companies (with educated employee base) who don't want their employees demonized (Google, Cisco, Apple, Genentech, you-name-it) - as opposed to Fred's Tire & Brake or Cathy's Christian Cake shop or whatever.

[Why the Mormons and other religious groups pitching directly into the Prop 8 fight get to keep their tax exempt religious status I simply do not know.]

Your explanation makes sense.

He shouldn't be excluded but he should be brought around to recognize that the politics surrounding his other beliefs have been harmful to gunrights.

How did prop 8 hurt gun rights?

[IVC]

...backwards enough to pass this...

Wow. Replace references to sexual orientation with references to gun ownership and you have all the Brady talking points: backwards, uneducated, need to be brought around, fading, Neanderthal... Is this the model of tolerance that we expect on 2A issues?

[Anchors]

I thought the point was less government interference?

I don't support "legalizing" straight marriage, much less gay marriage. And by "legalizing", I mean creating a legal definition of marriage and thus attaching various privileges and benefits. This is just more unnecessary government involvement in YOUR personal life, whether you're straight, gay, black, white, Jedi, whatever.

There was a time when black people in this country had to jump over a broom in secret and it still wasn't "official" in the eyes of the law. It didn't make them any less married. Just as two gay people living, working, raising kids, buying a house, etc, etc together doesn't make them less married.
If people are concerned about property claims and estate issues, there are wills for that.

Marriage is about two people choosing to commit to each other and nothing else. It isn't anyone else's business.

Get the government out of marriage and the issue will be moot. Then all the hateful people can choose not to recognize marriages for various reasons, but it will have no negative legal/equal protection impact. It'll be just like when anyone chooses to disapprove of you, your life, or something you do.
Get the government out of guns and that issue will be moot too. That isn't my solution for all political/governmental/societal issues, but for a lot of "social" issues it is your best bet.

As for the major political parties:

(Google, Cisco, Apple, Genentech, you-name-it)

See, now you're assuming those companies won't have completely left California by the time Prop 8 or "Prop -8" (whatever the opposite is) comes up again.

[Mesa Tactical]

If people are concerned about property claims and estate issues, there are wills for that.

Marriage is about two people choosing to commit to each other and nothing else. It isn't anyone else's business.

Ryan, as I pointed out in the locked thread, the government has to be involved in marriage. Since the government is called upon to decide the disposition of children and property when a marriage ends, for whatever reason, the government will also have to be able to define exactly who is married and who isn't.

[IVC]

Marriage is about two people choosing to commit to each other and nothing else.

To be blunt, no, it's not.

The above definition is a relatively new interpretation that came about in order to support a special social agenda. In its core, a modified definition like this is very similar to the "collective interpretation" of the 2A which came about in order to support a special social agenda, albeit a different one.

When growing up, looking up "marriage" in a dictionary (e.g., Webster's), a thesaurus or encyclopedia produced a colloquial definition which happened to be contradictory to the above.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, or that the definition will not evolve in that direction. Unlike 2A, this is not spelled out in the Constitution, so it can have the "evolving interpretation". What I am saying is that the above is NOT a current definition simply because people say so. The only reason I know this is because people in CA were asked about it in Prop 8 and they said so. If they said differently, I would stand corrected.

Agree with the most of the rest of your post, though.