Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 86

Thread: Gay Marriage + Loaded Open Carry = Compromise

  1. #1
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    All right...so after Obamas shalacking of John McCain in California one would think that the state is leaning so hard left its about to fall in the Pacific. BUT...the good people of California approved a measure on Gay marriage by 5%. A relative landslide to an outside observor.

    My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?

    If you think about it the two sides would have to do some soul searching. The righties would have to weigh an amendment that doesn't directly affect them to getting something that is fundamentally American. The lefties would have to swallow their down right HATRED of guns in order to get something that they want.

    Now, I don't agree with Gay Marriage...maybe civil unions or something...but whatever...i care MORE about my second Amendment rights and would be willing to sacrifice something I am relatively ambivalent about in order to achieve something I am passionate about.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Prophet wrote:
    My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?
    I would vote against it. Period.

    The government shouldn't be in our holsters or our relationships.

    Liberty and justice for all.



  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    MudCamper fails to recognize the reality of the situation.

    In truth, the government has no business requiring folks to obtain a license to marry in the first place. Marriage is a contractual agreement between consenting adults, and should require no government approval of any sort. However, the reality is that there are hundreds of legal benefits our government gives to married couples. And a lot of these have nothing to do with how your personal religion defines "marriage" and everything to do with special privileges for folks who make a lifetime commitment to one another. There is simply no legal justification for denying these privileges to same-sex couples. The best you'll come up with is "well, they can still get those privileges by marrying someone of the opposite sex", which totally ignores A: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and B: gay people do not choose to be gay. It would be akin to arguing blacks had no reason to want to end segregation because all they have to do is be white to get equal treatment.

    When government gets out of the business of defining "marriage", this whole issue will go away. Until then, saying "I want the government out of our bedrooms" and supporting something like prop 8 is hypocritical in the extreme. If you want the government out of our bedrooms, why would you support more restrictions on "bedroom-related" activity?

    The people of California were lied to by the LDS church, who had to engage in an all-out lie campaign to eek out a narrow margin. By the way, calling it a "landslide" is absurd and borders on disingenuous. The last time such an initiative was on the ballot it passed by over 60%. With the margin dropping at such a rate, I doubt very much the people of California will ever approve such an initiative again. As much as I hate Gavin Newsom, he had a point with his "gay marriage is coming whether you like it or not" speech.

    I, for one, would have no problem demanding both Loaded OC and gay marriage rights. For me, it wouldn't be a compromise, but killing two birds with one stone. Maybe the Loaded open carry section could be done in the name of gay rights. Defending against bashers and all that.

    Either we are equal, or we are not. Isn't that what Doug always says?

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I, for one, would have no problem demanding both Loaded OC and gay marriage rights. For me, it wouldn't be a compromise, but killing two birds with one stone.
    +1

    As much as I dislike the government being in our holsters and bedrooms, the fact is that they are. Much like 'shall issue' I would view this as a step in the right direction for both gun rights and gay rights.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    The Governemtns roll, as is the premise our country was basically founded on is that the minority were protected from the majority.

    The Governments job in this case is to, as you say, get out of our holsters and our relationships. The problem I have is that Prop 8 is exactly that....getting into relationships.


  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I think Cal. requires "one issue" bills (so no mixing ofideaslike the OP suggests - I could be wrong however). Still it wouldn't fly asthe amendment would be voted down. Our hope lies not with the legislature but with the courts only IMO.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    The Governemtns roll, as is the premise our country was basically founded on is that the minority were protected from the majority.

    The Governments job in this case is to, as you say, get out of our holsters and our relationships. The problem I have is that Prop 8 is exactly that....getting into relationships.
    I agree, and in this case I think the government intervention would in fact protect the minority from the 'mob rule' of the majority.

    So, I would support such a measure, as long as it did not increase government power or increase state spending. (I oppose ANY bill that increases spending, no matter how much I agree with the cause.)
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    MudCamper fails to recognize the reality of the situation.
    Perhaps. I took Prohet's post to mean that he wants to ban gay marriage, while granting firearms rights. Did he mean the opposite of that?

    I read this statement:

    the good people of California approved a measure on Gay marriage by 5%
    and assumed he supported the measure, which was a gay marriage ban.









  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    The way I read it, yes, he meant the opposite of that.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    The way I read it, yes, he meant the opposite of that.
    My mistake then. Let me be clear. I support the rights of all people to be free to do whatever they damn well please, so long as they don't violate anyone else's rights to life, liberty, or property. I believe the gay marriage ban to be ignorace and bigotry. It's shameful.



  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    The way I read it, yes, he meant the opposite of that.
    My mistake then. Let me be clear. I support the rights of all people to be free to do whatever they damn well please, so long as they don't violate anyone else's rights to life, liberty, or property. I believe the gay marriage ban to be ignorace and bigotry. It's shameful.

    *
    And on that note, I think it's clear how an initiative like the one Prophet proposes is a single-issue proposal. The issue? Equal rights for all.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Legal Realities of the situation needs to be made more clear before this discussion goes further. As much as I hate throwing cold water on this idea, we need to make it very clear the history of what we're talking about, and what exactly was done on prop 8.

    1977: California's marriage law makes it clear that two people of opposite sex are the only ones that can get a marriage license. This, however, did not effect out of state marriage licenses.

    2000: Proposition 22: Passed with a 61% vote. This made the 1977 more clear and made it where the only kinds of marriage allowed was between opposite sex couples.

    2004: San Francisco starts issuing marriage licenses. A court stops the issuance of the licenses, and in 2005, California Supreme Court invalidated those licenses, saying that San Francisco did not follow proper procedure in challenging Prop 22. San Francisco, as well as other plaintiffs, file court cases. District Court rules Prop 22 and the 1977 law unconstitutional. District Court of Appeals reverses.

    2008: In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 majority rules In re Marriage cases that sexual orientation is a suspect class under Provisions of Article 1, Section 7 of the California State Constitution, and rules the 1977 law and Proposition 22 unconstitutional.

    Read the decision here:

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ve/S147999.PDF

    Proposition 8, which was an initiative constitutional amendment, essentially presumes to nullify In Re Marriage Cases. Presumes, being the operative word.

    It appears that there's some pretty interesting case law which may make Proposition 8 a revision rather than an amendment. A revision has a much higher bar than an amendment, which requires a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature before being referred to the people.

    This is why Prop 8 is being challenged as a revision to the California Supreme Court in the form of Strauss v. Horton.

    http://data.lambdalegal.org/in-court...t-petition.pdf

    This entire situation is why I'm disgusted with the idea of direct constitutional initiatives. If my home state of Washington had a provision for this, our privacy provisions (Article 1, Section 7) would have been rendered a nullity by the law enforcement lobby when our State Supreme Court started hammering down on state law enforcement agencies on a stricter basis than the 4th amendment to the US constitution. We (as Washingtonians) would have been subjected to repeated calls to authority and red herring attacks on the Washington State's better constitutional protections than the US constitution. Luckily the CASC ruled in Raven v. Deukmejian on a similar attack that it was a revision and struck Prop 115 down.

    From a political perspective, the Pro-Prop 8 folks went too far. They attacked the entirety of the GLBT population in what is considered the most "pro-gay" state in the union, using every dirty tactic in the book to do so to scare people into voting for it. I can tell you from my hearing of chatter that this was a political "Pearl Harbor" on the GLBT community, on the mistaken belief the Californians that did bother to vote would not vote to strip 18,000 of their marriage licenses. They were wrong. All of the "pro-family" groups had better hope that the CASC does strike down Prop 8 as a revision, because now you have 18,000 people who are now activists who will donate their time, money, and hard work for the battle that will come every 2 years. Believe me, folks, they're wanting to put a "Repeal Prop 8" on the ballot every 2 years and they will not rest until it's repealed, and the opposition to such will take tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars each and every time in a war of attrition that the opposition campaign is likely to lose.

    Gun owners should watch and LEARN how the anti-Prop 8 protests and other such things are going right now. If gun owners were this organized as the GLBT community is right this moment after Roberti-Roos, it would have been a footnote in history in the early 1990's. Gun owners should realize that they are not the most marginalized group in society. Gun owners don't have anti-gun organizations trying to put in constitutional amendments to repeal state RKBA provisions and then tell you that you can never own guns ever in your life. Gun owners don't have anti-gun organizations trying to put in constitutional amendments to ban you from being able to adopt children if you own guns. Granted, this is being done very surreptitiously and not openly and via twisted case law (which was finally reversed by Heller), but if gun owners were flat out openly attacked in the fashion as the GLBT population has been, there would have been a full on Second Revolution decades ago.

    That being said, the Legislature cannot pass a "gay marriage" bill if Prop 8 is held to be an amendment. This idea of combining a bill in re PC12050 and the Family Code is DOA. Right now, only the California Supreme Court can declare Prop 8 a revision, or declare it a violation of the 14th amendment.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    This entire situation is why I'm disgusted with the idea of direct constitutional initiatives.
    How Progressives helped the Religious Right mug gay rights

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Gun owners should watch and LEARN how the anti-Prop 8 protests and other such things are going right now. If gun owners were this organized as the GLBT community is right this moment after Roberti-Roos, it would have been a footnote in history in the early 1990's. Gun owners should realize that they are not the most marginalized group in society. Gun owners don't have anti-gun organizations trying to put in constitutional amendments to repeal state RKBA provisions and then tell you that you can never own guns ever in your life. Gun owners don't have anti-gun organizations trying to put in constitutional amendments to ban you from being able to adopt children if you own guns. Granted, this is being done very surreptitiously and not openly and via twisted case law (which was finally reversed by Heller), but if gun owners were flat out openly attacked in the fashion as the GLBT population has been, there would have been a full on Second Revolution decades ago.
    +1

    I'm willing to bet there are more disenfranchised gun owners in California than there are GLBTs. For some reason we take it lying down while they go out and do stuff to get their rights. I think maybe too many people put all their eggs in the NRA basket, thinking that paying their dues and wearing an NRA ballcap is all that's needed to win this fight.

    We certainly should watch and learn from the GLBTs; they're motivated and getting the job done.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    The truth is that Prop. 8 did nothing more than legally define the term "marriage" as being between a man and a woman.

    It did nothing more. It has nothing to do with guns or what two people can do together or anything else. It doesn't stop people from doing anything.

    I have no clue why this thread is even on a gun forum.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    I have no clue why this thread is even on a gun forum.
    While I disagree with your preceeding statements, I whole-heartedly agree with you on this one. This does not belong on a gun forum. It will only serve to divide us.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    I have no clue why this thread is even on a gun forum.
    While I disagree with your preceeding statements, I whole-heartedly agree with you on this one. This does not belong on a gun forum. It will only serve to divide us.

    I am not in Church and if I want a moral discussion, I should go there.

    We have so much we can accomplish if we are united in those things we agree upon. And you are exactly right in your statement that such threads serve only to divide us

  18. #18
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    The way I read it, yes, he meant the opposite of that.
    Indeed I did.

    And the reason this is on a gun forum is that sometimes one must think outside the box in order to acheives ones goals. Politics make for strange bedfellows and all that. Think of this, while gun owners may not be a minority in the political sphere per se, ACTIVE gun owners willing to fight to keep their right is a minority. Sometimes the coupling of two groups who find themselves in the minority should band together in order to accomplish both their ends.

    This was only a suggestion. Since I don't live in your upside down whack job state I have very little actually tangible stakes in the outcome save for the esoteric success of the gun rights of the largest state in the union.

    If its not a feasible or good idea, no big deal, one must keep pluggin away but i do not see why this should divide us.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    The truth is that Prop. 8 did nothing more than legally define the term "marriage" as being between a man and a woman.

    It did nothing more.** It has nothing to do with guns or what two people can do together or anything else.** It doesn't stop people from doing anything.

    I have no clue why this thread is even on a gun forum.
    Allow me to disagree. I require freedom. To me, there is little distinction between open carry rights and gay marriage rights. I fail to understand what could be divisive about freedom; and I have no desire to work towards freedom with those who oppose it.

    By the way, prop 8 stops two gay people from getting married and enjoying the state benefits. So perhaps you care to explain your statement "it doesn't stop people from doing anything".

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    By the way, prop 8 stops two gay people from getting married and enjoying the state benefits. So perhaps you care to explain your statement "it doesn't stop people from doing anything".
    +1

    Let's say we change the definition of justifiable homicide to only apply to Caucasians? Would it prevent certain people from doing something they were allowed to before the definition changed? This would clearly be a deprivation of rights based solely on ethnicity.

    So how is depriving homosexuals of their right to pursue happiness any different than depriving blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc from their right to defend their life?


    As for the reason this is on an open carry forum: read the original post... it actually involves open carry specifically. Go ahead, don't take my word for it, actually read what this thread is about.

    ...My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg."
    Abraham Lincoln


    Proposition 8 defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman....Nothing more

    They can still do what ever they want to do and call it what ever they want to.



    The atheists among us may not see any harm in sanctioning a marriage between anything but a man and a woman, but I do.



    Call it what you will...It doesn't change what it is.



    As for open carry of a firearm or the possession of a firearm...it is a right and ALL should be allowed to exercise that right.

    As a right it should not be tied to any other concept or cause.

    It was given from Our Father in Heaven to all, just as He defined marriage and ordained the proper use of the power to pro-create.

    You don't like that....that's OK...Some people don't like you carrying a gun openly and that's OK

    I'm OK with people doing what ever they want with their bodies...But call it what it is and not what it is not. They must be held responsible for their actions.

    I'm OK with you carrying any gun you want to carry any way you want, and I say the same here...Call it what it is and not what it is not.You must be held responsible foryour actions.

    I truly hate terms like always and never, because in the real world there are very few absolute things.

    Like them or not, the above statements are absolute.



  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    I have no clue why this thread is even on a gun forum.
    Allow me to disagree. I require freedom. To me, there is little distinction between open carry rights and gay marriage rights. I fail to understand what could be divisive about freedom; and I have no desire to work towards freedom with those who oppose it.
    While I agree with your stance in this particular case (I have some very close friends and family who are gay), there are many in the pro-2A community that also happen to fear/dislike the gay community. While you and I may agree that all people should be treated equal, it doesn't alter the fact that this topic will create argument (and possibly divide) amongst the otherwise very diverse pro-gun community. We come to these forums from different sides of the political and social spectrum because the single issue we share here is an interest in firearms and firearms rights. Bickering about things that are totally unrelated to firearms rights can be, IMO, counterproductive here, in a gun forum.






  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Prophet wrote:
    My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?
    I love to carry loaded and without permit, but if they are in the same proposition, I would vote it down. Besides, the prop 8 had been decided. Please, people, respect the vote. The anti-prop8 people would insist that the pro-pro8 people to respect the vote had prop8 been defeated. But since prop8 passed, now they are whining? Lets all be adults, you will gain respect that way. This is a gun forum. MOVE ON.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    Prophet wrote:
    My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?
    I love to carry loaded and without permit, but if they are in the same proposition, I would vote it down. Besides, the prop 8 had been decided. Please, people, respect the vote. The anti-prop8 people would insist that the pro-pro8 people to respect the vote had prop8 been defeated. But since prop8 passed, now they are whining? Lets all be adults, you will gain respect that way. This is a gun forum. MOVE ON.*
    Adults don't use ballots to create a tyranny of the plurality and strip minorities of their rights.

    Paladain_Havegun_Willtravel is mistaken about the effect of proposition 8 (perhaps since he doesn't live in California he should take the advice he gave me about Arizona). The Supreme Court of California decided that marriage benefits had to be applied to all persons, regardless of sex, who choose to be married. Prop 8 reversed this. It did a lot more than "define" marriage. Trust me, this is not an issue of terminology. This is an issue of equal protection (or benefits) under the law.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    The atheists among us may not see any harm in sanctioning a marriage between anything but a man and a woman, but I do.

    It was given from Our Father in Heaven to all, just as He defined marriage and ordained the proper use of the power to pro-create.
    You are correct, without an imaginary person to tell me how to think, I am incapable of that type of bigotry.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •