marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
I think that's really the point. Doesn't seem too OT to me.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Gay Marriage + Loaded Open Carry = Compromise
- Thread starter Prophet
- Start date
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
I said this a long time ago.
Lets keep it on topic. Our Gun rights should not be tied to any other type of social or moral question.
They should stand alone.
marshaul wrote:
I said this a long time ago.
Lets keep it on topic. Our Gun rights should not be tied to any other type of social or moral question.
They should stand alone.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Easy for you to say. With all my rights under constant assault, it isn't easy for me to parcel them up and assign priority. As I said before, I make little distinction between Loaded OC rights and gay marriage rights. You'll notice some folks agree with me.
Easy for you to say. With all my rights under constant assault, it isn't easy for me to parcel them up and assign priority. As I said before, I make little distinction between Loaded OC rights and gay marriage rights. You'll notice some folks agree with me.
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
If the law can be made to discriminate and restrict one right, it can just as easily be expanded to all rights.
marshaul wrote:
+1,000,000!!
If the law can be made to discriminate and restrict one right, it can just as easily be expanded to all rights.
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
I do not remember these things being put to vote and being decided by the people themselves. True they are products of the people we vote to office to represent us, supposedly. But you also know that these so-called representatives can vote according to their own agenda and emotions to the issue, and not really the will of the people.
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
I do not remember these things being put to vote and being decided by the people themselves. True they are products of the people we vote to office to represent us, supposedly. But you also know that these so-called representatives can vote according to their own agenda and emotions to the issue, and not really the will of the people.
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
I vote to close this thread. whether you are pro or against gay marriage, or for bundling of rights or not, let's move on.
There will be no resolution to this thread.
I vote we close this thread.
I vote to close this thread. whether you are pro or against gay marriage, or for bundling of rights or not, let's move on.
There will be no resolution to this thread.
I vote we close this thread.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Why are some so eager to clamp down on a little debate? This forum is filled with debate of all sorts. I don't see why this thread should be closed, other than you disagreeing with it.
Why are some so eager to clamp down on a little debate? This forum is filled with debate of all sorts. I don't see why this thread should be closed, other than you disagreeing with it.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
KS_to_CA wrote:
Further, this forum is not a democracy. Admins will shut down threads when they feel it is necessary. I respect their right to run their website however they want to. Though I have disagreed with them every time they have done it, and done plenty of bitching about it too. (Thankfully they tolerate the criticism well.)
Why do you want to stop the rest of us from engaging in friendly (though lively) debate? I think you should show a little more respect for free speech.
KS_to_CA wrote:
You are not legally, civilly, or morally obligated to engage in this discussion. If you don't like this thread then stop reading it.
Further, this forum is not a democracy. Admins will shut down threads when they feel it is necessary. I respect their right to run their website however they want to. Though I have disagreed with them every time they have done it, and done plenty of bitching about it too. (Thankfully they tolerate the criticism well.)
Why do you want to stop the rest of us from engaging in friendly (though lively) debate? I think you should show a little more respect for free speech.
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Yeah, as long as we don't resort to personal attacks and calling eachother names only a 5th grader would use I think that there is nothing wrong with a lively debate.
And just to reposition my stance, I am not religious in any way. I think that religion is the cause of the downfall of the humans civilization. In my opinion religion is far more devisive than it is positive. That being said, if there were a ban on any particular religion I would just as strongly argue against it. To me it isn't a matter of what I believe, but the fact that one be free to believe and exercise those beliefs.
Just as I once said on this very forum. . . I don't condone someone burning the American flag, but it is a protected right, and I will protect it, even if I don't agree with it, because it is a right. I don't believe I have the benefit of selective protection of rights. This country, and I will say it again, was designed to help protect the minority from the mob rule(majority) and sometimes we forget that. The argument could easily be made that we as gun owners are the minority and have been overuled by the majority...should we too just shut up and drink our kool-aid?
Yeah, as long as we don't resort to personal attacks and calling eachother names only a 5th grader would use I think that there is nothing wrong with a lively debate.
And just to reposition my stance, I am not religious in any way. I think that religion is the cause of the downfall of the humans civilization. In my opinion religion is far more devisive than it is positive. That being said, if there were a ban on any particular religion I would just as strongly argue against it. To me it isn't a matter of what I believe, but the fact that one be free to believe and exercise those beliefs.
Just as I once said on this very forum. . . I don't condone someone burning the American flag, but it is a protected right, and I will protect it, even if I don't agree with it, because it is a right. I don't believe I have the benefit of selective protection of rights. This country, and I will say it again, was designed to help protect the minority from the mob rule(majority) and sometimes we forget that. The argument could easily be made that we as gun owners are the minority and have been overuled by the majority...should we too just shut up and drink our kool-aid?
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
"I think you should show a little more respect for free speech."
WHAT??? :shock:
This is not a matter of curtailing free speech. Where did you get that. This is a matter of trying to maintain amicable atmosphere here in the forum, especially considering that people have unbending opinion regarding this topic.
I am suggesting to close this thread exactly because this, most likely, will lead to nowhere except to the very argument that started this thread anyway.
And then it becomes a vicious cycle.
My thought is that not because speech is free, and we can afford internet time, that we do not spend those resources towards other endeavors - like discussions on how more we can push for open carry agenda
Well, if you want to spend more time and effort to a never-ending discussion, that's your right.
"I think you should show a little more respect for free speech."
WHAT??? :shock:
This is not a matter of curtailing free speech. Where did you get that. This is a matter of trying to maintain amicable atmosphere here in the forum, especially considering that people have unbending opinion regarding this topic.
I am suggesting to close this thread exactly because this, most likely, will lead to nowhere except to the very argument that started this thread anyway.
And then it becomes a vicious cycle.
My thought is that not because speech is free, and we can afford internet time, that we do not spend those resources towards other endeavors - like discussions on how more we can push for open carry agenda
Well, if you want to spend more time and effort to a never-ending discussion, that's your right.
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
Maybe you should take your own advice.
I am also a Christian. The congregation in which I was married defines marriage in the traditional way. The state should never interfere in that, whether the church is traditional or liberal. A gay couple taking vows in a Unitarian-Universalist church is not a threat to me, my marriage, my rights, or my way of life; an overbearing and intrusive state threatens all of those things, and more.
What if the pastor who signs off on the government license could not do so without being licensed to preach? Do we have baptism licenses? Are church memberships registered with the government?
Government, as has been said here already, should be completely out of the licensing business, because the power to deny licensing is the power to deny freedom.
- Marriage
- Driving
- Vehicle registration
- Teaching
- Professional licensing
- School
- Daycare
- Guns (both ownership and carrying)
"Do away with professional licensing? Are you crazy? Do you want brain surgeons who aren't certified?" No, I don't, but certification is not the same as state licensure. I trust ASE mechanics, but Mr. Goodwrench doesn't need a state license to prove he knows what he's doing.
Physicians, attorneys, engineers and psychologists all take rigorous exams from their private professional organizations. The problem comes when those organizations persuade the state to make them the sole arbiters of qualification, and to forbid non-members from practicing.
Just keep the government out of it, and consumers will decide whether they should pay extra to Mr. Goodwrench, or take their chances on the shadetree mechanic down the street.
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
...sayeth the man who then went on to quote Scripture and moralize to "the atheists among us".
Maybe you should take your own advice.
I am also a Christian. The congregation in which I was married defines marriage in the traditional way. The state should never interfere in that, whether the church is traditional or liberal. A gay couple taking vows in a Unitarian-Universalist church is not a threat to me, my marriage, my rights, or my way of life; an overbearing and intrusive state threatens all of those things, and more.
What if the pastor who signs off on the government license could not do so without being licensed to preach? Do we have baptism licenses? Are church memberships registered with the government?
Government, as has been said here already, should be completely out of the licensing business, because the power to deny licensing is the power to deny freedom.
- Marriage
- Driving
- Vehicle registration
- Teaching
- Professional licensing
- School
- Daycare
- Guns (both ownership and carrying)
"Do away with professional licensing? Are you crazy? Do you want brain surgeons who aren't certified?" No, I don't, but certification is not the same as state licensure. I trust ASE mechanics, but Mr. Goodwrench doesn't need a state license to prove he knows what he's doing.
Physicians, attorneys, engineers and psychologists all take rigorous exams from their private professional organizations. The problem comes when those organizations persuade the state to make them the sole arbiters of qualification, and to forbid non-members from practicing.
Just keep the government out of it, and consumers will decide whether they should pay extra to Mr. Goodwrench, or take their chances on the shadetree mechanic down the street.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
The laws you have mentioned above are "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". This is because they go against something spelled out clearly in the CONSTITUTION.
If a judge were to overturn them, it would have to be on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.
The anti gay marraige law that was overturned a few years ago, was overturned on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.
The people didn't like it, so they CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION.
If a judge now determines that he/she doesn't think that Prop 8 is "right", they have NO LEGAL BASIS to overturn it. Because it is now PART OF THE CONSTITUTION of California.
If the anti 2A people want to stop our fight in its tracks all they have to do is CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, and we would have NO LEGAL BASIS to challenge it. Fortunately for us, the requirements to change the U.S. Constitution are greater than those for changing the California Constitution.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
The laws you have mentioned above are "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". This is because they go against something spelled out clearly in the CONSTITUTION.
If a judge were to overturn them, it would have to be on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.
The anti gay marraige law that was overturned a few years ago, was overturned on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.
The people didn't like it, so they CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION.
If a judge now determines that he/she doesn't think that Prop 8 is "right", they have NO LEGAL BASIS to overturn it. Because it is now PART OF THE CONSTITUTION of California.
If the anti 2A people want to stop our fight in its tracks all they have to do is CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, and we would have NO LEGAL BASIS to challenge it. Fortunately for us, the requirements to change the U.S. Constitution are greater than those for changing the California Constitution.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Prop 8 is likely unconstitutional itself. Lonnie make a post about this on page 1. The California Constitution may be "amended" with a majority vote, but a revision requires 2/3rds vote of the legislature. While adding a new protection may be an "amendment", going back and eliminating protections already provided by the constitution and enforced by the courts is certainly a "revision".
ETA: read the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602332289207499.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Prop 8 is likely unconstitutional itself. Lonnie make a post about this on page 1. The California Constitution may be "amended" with a majority vote, but a revision requires 2/3rds vote of the legislature. While adding a new protection may be an "amendment", going back and eliminating protections already provided by the constitution and enforced by the courts is certainly a "revision".
ETA: read the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602332289207499.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Here is the pertinent portion of the article that deals with revision versus amendment in California constitutional jurisprudence.
Mr. Cruz: The lawsuits challenge the procedure by which the referendum was passed. Under California law, there are two categories of changes that can be made to the state constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are more minor changes; revisions are larger in effect. This is important because each has its own process for taking effect, essentially different ways they go before the voters. An amendment can go in the form of a ballot initiative, which requires a certain number of signatures to make its way on. Constitutional revisions, however, have to have a two-thirds blessing from each house of the state legislature to make the ballot.
Now, the problem, at least from the point of view of Proposition 8 supporters, is that the legislature had previously indicated a willingness to support same-sex marriage. So the proposition's supporters were unwilling to treat this bill as a revision and send it to the legislature, opting instead to treat it as an amendment. So the Proposition 8 opponents are arguing that this change actually constitutes a revision, not an amendment, and therefore needed to go through the legislature.
Unfortunately the only time there can be a challenge on the question of revision versus amendment is after the supposed "amendment" passes.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm
From the Strauss v. Horton case:
This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the “Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.” That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California’s courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state’s constitution.
The case is Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326 (1990), in which the California Supreme Court held Proposition 115 § 3 - - - which provided that certain enumerated criminal defendants' rights would be construed consistently with the United States Constitution and that criminal and juvenile defendants would not be afforded greater rights than that afforded by the federal Constitution - - - was impermissible under the initiative process.
The supporters (those being the ones who ran the campaign) of Prop 8 essentially cheated, because they knew that the Legislature wasn't going to go for it, and they also were ignorant of the California Constitutional case law, or chose to ignore it. The California Constitution does not allow for this form of amendment without going through the revision process.
Here is the pertinent portion of the article that deals with revision versus amendment in California constitutional jurisprudence.
Mr. Cruz: The lawsuits challenge the procedure by which the referendum was passed. Under California law, there are two categories of changes that can be made to the state constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are more minor changes; revisions are larger in effect. This is important because each has its own process for taking effect, essentially different ways they go before the voters. An amendment can go in the form of a ballot initiative, which requires a certain number of signatures to make its way on. Constitutional revisions, however, have to have a two-thirds blessing from each house of the state legislature to make the ballot.
Now, the problem, at least from the point of view of Proposition 8 supporters, is that the legislature had previously indicated a willingness to support same-sex marriage. So the proposition's supporters were unwilling to treat this bill as a revision and send it to the legislature, opting instead to treat it as an amendment. So the Proposition 8 opponents are arguing that this change actually constitutes a revision, not an amendment, and therefore needed to go through the legislature.
Unfortunately the only time there can be a challenge on the question of revision versus amendment is after the supposed "amendment" passes.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm
From the Strauss v. Horton case:
This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the “Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.” That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California’s courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state’s constitution.
The case is Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326 (1990), in which the California Supreme Court held Proposition 115 § 3 - - - which provided that certain enumerated criminal defendants' rights would be construed consistently with the United States Constitution and that criminal and juvenile defendants would not be afforded greater rights than that afforded by the federal Constitution - - - was impermissible under the initiative process.
The supporters (those being the ones who ran the campaign) of Prop 8 essentially cheated, because they knew that the Legislature wasn't going to go for it, and they also were ignorant of the California Constitutional case law, or chose to ignore it. The California Constitution does not allow for this form of amendment without going through the revision process.
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
Can't resist. Here's two questions, please answer honestly, if you can. This is a simple yes or no question, we don't need lengthy discussion.
Had proposition 8 been defeated, do you think the gay community would have the decency to go to courts and say "the defeat of prop 8 is favorable to me and to the gay community, but since this is not a valid legal exercise, this is actually a revision and not an amendment, please discard the result of the vote (defeating the prop 8) and let us start all over again"?
Second, had the prop 8 been defeated, do you think the gay community would have called this "a wonderful legal victory whose time has come"?
Can't resist. Here's two questions, please answer honestly, if you can. This is a simple yes or no question, we don't need lengthy discussion.
Had proposition 8 been defeated, do you think the gay community would have the decency to go to courts and say "the defeat of prop 8 is favorable to me and to the gay community, but since this is not a valid legal exercise, this is actually a revision and not an amendment, please discard the result of the vote (defeating the prop 8) and let us start all over again"?
Second, had the prop 8 been defeated, do you think the gay community would have called this "a wonderful legal victory whose time has come"?
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
KS_to_CA wrote:
As for the second, of course they would put out a press release with something similar, just like the NRA and other gun rights organizations when the Heller court vindicated the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down the DC Handgun Ban.
KS_to_CA wrote:
The courts wouldn't involve themselves in such a lawsuit anyway and dismiss it with prejudice. Until the votes counted, there is no controversy to litigate. No standing. You'd be asking them to spend hundreds, perhaps even thousands of hours, on billable work to ask the courts to throw away a vote to defeat, which they won't take. If you did understand the history, you'd know that there was a writ petition on this very subject back in July, and it was dismissed due to the fact that it hadn't actually passed yet. Nothing to litigate, no standing.
As for the second, of course they would put out a press release with something similar, just like the NRA and other gun rights organizations when the Heller court vindicated the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down the DC Handgun Ban.
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Would they or would they not?
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
The question is not about the courts. The question, still unanswered, concerns the action and attitude that the gay community would have shown if the prop 8 was defeated.
Would they or would they not?
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
KS_to_CA wrote:
KS_to_CA wrote:
I already answered your question. If you don't like the answer to the question repeating the same question again isn't going to net you a different result.
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Um...I think it is a little rediculous to argue...if my rights are being put to a vote and then taken away I will say something, but if they are not taken away I am not going to go and argue that the prop was not a legal prop in the first place. . . I have better places to spend my money than fighting a vote that works in my favor. . .
You don't go bringing skeletons out of a dead proposition that ended in your favor. . . That would be like the North coming back and saying they want to forget about the Civil war because they were not sure it was right in the first place. . .
Um...I think it is a little rediculous to argue...if my rights are being put to a vote and then taken away I will say something, but if they are not taken away I am not going to go and argue that the prop was not a legal prop in the first place. . . I have better places to spend my money than fighting a vote that works in my favor. . .
You don't go bringing skeletons out of a dead proposition that ended in your favor. . . That would be like the North coming back and saying they want to forget about the Civil war because they were not sure it was right in the first place. . .