Gay Marriage + Loaded Open Carry = Compromise

[marshaul]

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

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"?

The fact that you're asking this question shows you're confused about what's going on. This question doesn't make any sense in light of the facts.

 

[Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

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

...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.....

Craig.....I probably should have taken my won advice.

I guess I erroneously supposed that the question was asked by someone who really wanted to know.

You say your congregation defines marriage as between a man and a woman. that is good.

How would you like to have your church forced to define it differently, which is exactly were the Homosexual movement wants to go with it.

They were tolerated.....that was not enough....they were accepted.....that was not enough....they wreembraced....that is not enough...They want to dominate and force all others to be as they are......Sorry enough is enough.



If you want to know more...PM me.

this is still not the place for this discussion.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

How would you like to have your church forced to define it differently, which is exactly were the Homosexual movement wants to go with it.

I hear this lie repeated ad infinitum. This is OCDO; please provide a citation. And I don't mean some other liar spouting unsubstantiated lies. Please provide a citation demonstrating a case where this has happened, legislation which has been proposed to effect this, or anything.

The simple fact is you can't, because you're lying.

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

They were tolerated.....that was not enough....they were accepted.....that was not enough....they wreembraced....that is not enough...They want to dominate and force all others to be as they are......Sorry enough is enough.

Here you are, lying again. Please explain how passing a ballot initiative which, and I quote, "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" is in any way tolerant, accepting, embracing, or anything other than bigoted and hateful in the extreme.

 
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

this is still not the place for this discussion.

You've made it quite clear you have no respect for rights other than those you personally choose to exercise. We've made it clear we feel the discussion should continue as long as it will. Why do you continue to repeat yourself?

 

[KS_to_CA]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

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. . .

Exactly my point. Glad you mentioned that. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of the action the anti prop 8 groups is doing. It is not about the legality of the exercise or correctness of the legal procedure - whether amendment or revision.

Itboils doen to one thing: Sore losers whinning and trying to force their agenda despite a legal and valid exercise that they worked on, financed, raised money for, and participated in.

There. Time to move on for me. I've pointed my argument.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

It boils doen to one thing: Sore losers whinning and trying to force their agenda despite a legal and valid exercise that they worked on, financed, raised money for, and participated in.

There. Time to move on for me. I've pointed my argument.

I guess Heller was a sore loser too, huh? If the majority voted to strip you of your RKBA, would you meekly accept it? Or would you be a "sore loser", protest, and use any legal means to restore your lost right?

Of course we all already know the answer. Hypocrite.

 

[KS_to_CA]

imported post

"Just when I thought I am out, they pull me back in."

The RKBA is in the US Constitution. The gay rights is not. Do not equate and confuse. I have seen this tactic before.

In the case of RKBA, Heller is a clarification of the 2A which showed clearly that judges do and can legislate. But the RKBA through 2A is ahead of the rulings.

The Prop 8 is a different thing. It is already part of the CA Code 300 and 308.5. The people of CA voted prop 22 (2000) in support of the code. The judges again legislated, and the people is merely affirming what is already there through prop 8.

If you want to equate the prop 8 with the RKBA, it is this:

RKBA through 2A is already in the Constitution, judges said we ca't have guns, people then voted to re-affirm the 2A, and the "sore losers", those against the RKBA insists that the vote to re-affirm 2A is not a valid legal exercise.

See the comparison?

Hyprocite? You are right, but those are the ones rallying on the streets right now.

Okay, I hope now I am done with this thread.

 

[KS_to_CA]

imported post

Okay. I graciously bow out from this thread. Been fun sparring with y'all. It has been a pleasure.

My personal opinion (read, personal opinion) is that both sides have their own points they want to carry and share but neither side is going to convert the other. And each side will not agree with the other side.

So adios amigos, off to more "results-based" threads I go.

I will see you on other threads and kudos to Prophet for starting such an interesting thread.

Keep on carrying, everyone.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

"Just when I thought I am out, they pull me back in."

The RKBA is in the US Constitution. The gay rights is not. Do not equate and confuse. I have seen this tactic before.

In the case of RKBA, Heller is a clarification of the 2A which showed clearly that judges do and can legislate. But the RKBA through 2A is ahead of the rulings.

The Prop 8 is a different thing. It is already part of the CA Code 300 and 308.5. The people of CA voted prop 22 (2000) in support of the code. The judges again legislated, and the people is merely affirming what is already there through prop 8.

If you want to equate the prop 8 with the RKBA, it is this:

RKBA through 2A is already in the Constitution, judges said we ca't have guns, people then voted to re-affirm the 2A, and the "sore losers", those against the RKBA insists that the vote to re-affirm 2A is not a valid legal exercise.

See the comparison?

Hyprocite? You are right, but those are the ones rallying on the streets right now.

Okay, I hope now I am done with this thread.

Your argument fails on numerous levels. First of all, according to the 9th Amendment,

The 9th Amendment wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So don't argue that because the second amendment is in the constitution, and gay marriage rights aren't, I can't "equate and confuse" the two, because the constitution takes my side on this one.

Furthermore, you analogy is flawed. Allow me to correct it. Were you to transpose this circumstance into the gun rights arena, it would be as if (1)legislature passed a gun ban, (2)the supreme court overturned it as unconstitutional (which is the function of the judiciary, and is not "legislating" from the bench as you like to claim), (3)vocal minority groups engaged in a massive expenditure of time and money to abuse the ballot initiative process (that collectivist, anti-Republican brainchild of the Progressives), to unconstitutionally attempt to revise the constitution, and finally (4) gun owners said, "No, just because you abused the system and managed to eke out a majority, thanks to strong black voter turnout for Obama, doesn't mean you get to abrogate our natural rights."

And, yes, trying to twist it around and create disingenuous analogies makes you a hypocrite.

(BTW, my reference to black voters isn't intended to racist, it's a reference to the fact that a higher percentage of blacks voted yes on Prop 8 than Christians.

As my favorite blog author says,

The original measure to ban gay marriage in California passed quite easily. Not this time. They barely managed to secure a majority of voters. And it may not be possible to do it again. There were numerous things that had to be done this time just to get a bare majority.

First, they benefited because of the high Black voter turnout. Black voters are even more bigoted than fundamentalists. A higher percentage of Christians voted no on Prop 8 than Africa-Americans. The reality, which the political Left dare not admit, is that African-Americans are a deeply bigoted lot especially when it comes to the rights of gay people. But that huge turnout was because Blacks saw their first chance to elect a “black man” as president. I put that in quotes merely because Mr. Obama is as black as he is white when it comes to his race. If the Prop 8 supporters think they will have that happen each time this comes up again they are wrong.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

The RKBA is in the US Constitution. The gay rights is not. Do not equate and confuse. I have seen this tactic before.

Gay people have the equally protected right to enjoy all government contracts and benefits of the marriage license as you and I do. Even if the 'pro-8' folks had followed proper procedure to amend the CA constitution to ban gay marriage, I think it would be easily struck down in court as discriminatory.

The bottom line is: you can't make anything in the law apply differently depending on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc. You're welcome to have your own bigotry, but you cannot impose that on the rest of us by cramming it into statute or constitution. Wrong is wrong no matter how fancy the paper it is written on.

 

[Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

........The bottom line is: you can't make anything in the law apply differently depending on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc. You're welcome to have your own bigotry, but you cannot impose that on the rest of us by cramming it into statute or constitution. Wrong is wrong no matter how fancy the paper it is written on.

The above statement is simply not constitutional.

For example Article 1 Section 2 states, ....."No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years"

Article 1 section 3 states. ......"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years"

Citizens cannot vote until they are 18, and on and on.

This is discrimination on age, plain and simple. The Constitution, by its very nature flies in the face of your statement.

I just finished reading, again, the Constitution and I found your above statement, was not present in its body or in any of its amendments.

The closest I could find was the following;



Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

California's proposition 8 does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. It was the antithesis of your claim, and it goes a long way in protecting innocents under the law.



End of Story

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

I take the blame for mixing two complex and very different concepts in my previous post. I apologize for not being more clear. Let me break down the two concepts:

1) A statute or state constitution amendment is bound by US Constitution and SCOTUS decisions. Thus, we cannot make things illegal in our state if the feds already have declared it a right. There's nothing in the US Constitution saying black people are entitled to marriage licenses, but we have precedent that tells us we can't stop them. In this situation the federal justice system does its job by stopping bigotry from being implemented in government. The feds aren't always right, but this is the political reality you have to deal with when passing a law or constitutional amendment.

2) A separate concept is that, even things in the US Constitution are subject to being 'wrong.' I respect much of the ideas in that document, but I think there is room to improve. At one time our US Constitution prohibited alcohol. This was wrong, but was enforced for years. Our courts have also read in a great deal of powers for the federal govt that don't exist (FDA, DEA, BATFE - or whatevery it's acronym is now).

So, while there is some age discrimination in our US Constitution, I don't think it is right. I know some 17-yr-olds that are more mature than some 40-yr-olds and would make better elected officials. Let the People decide if they lack the maturity or experience to run the country.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

California's proposition 8 does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. It was the antithesis of your claim, and it goes a long way in protecting innocents under the law.

I don't think very many people believe this.

Liberty is doing what you want, when you want. As long as I am not violating the rights of another person I have the right to be left alone.

Further, a marriage license is not a religious contract. If it were, government regulation and taxation would be strictly prohibited.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

California's proposition 8 does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. It was the antithesis of your claim, and it goes a long way in protecting innocents under the law.

I don't think very many people believe this.

Liberty is doing what you want, when you want. As long as I am not violating the rights of another person I have the right to be left alone.

Further, a marriage license is not a religious contract. If it were, government regulation and taxation would be strictly prohibited.

Under current California laws, a couple who have formed a "Civil Union" have all the legal rights as a married couple. They simply fill out a different form.

As a Licensed Minister, I have not, nor will I ever "sanctify" a civil union with a religious ceremony.

I will however, sanctify a marraige, as it is a religious ceremony.

Prop 8 has far reaching implications for those of us who have religious affiliations. Before Prop 8, if I offered my services to marry Jill and John, in a religious ceremony, and I accept any monetary compensation for it, I would then be FORCED by law to also marry Bill and Ron if they asked me to perform their "wedding" ceremony. If I refused, I would be hit with a discrimination lawsuit and not be allowed to perform ANY weddings (religious ceremonies) in California, and I would be labeled as a bigot. When I perform a wedding, it is a religious ceremony, performed for people who hold the same basic religious beliefs that I do. It is not a government activity.

The license may be required by the State, but once the license has been granted, the ceremony is religious in nature.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Prop 8 has far reaching implications for those of us who have religious affiliations.  Before Prop 8, if I offered my services to marry Jill and John, in a religious ceremony, and I accept any monetary compensation for it, I would then be FORCED by law to also marry Bill and Ron if they asked me to perform their "wedding" ceremony.  If I refused, I would be hit with a discrimination lawsuit and not be allowed to perform ANY weddings (religious ceremonies) in California, and I would be labeled as a bigot.  When I perform a wedding, it is a religious ceremony, performed for people who hold the same basic religious beliefs that I do.  It is not a government activity.

This is patently false. Since this is OCDO and you're making the claim, the burden of providing a citation is upon you, my friend.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

Prop 8 has far reaching implications for those of us who have religious affiliations. Before Prop 8, if I offered my services to marry Jill and John, in a religious ceremony, and I accept any monetary compensation for it, I would then be FORCED by law to also marry Bill and Ron if they asked me to perform their "wedding" ceremony. If I refused, I would be hit with a discrimination lawsuit and not be allowed to perform ANY weddings (religious ceremonies) in California, and I would be labeled as a bigot. When I perform a wedding, it is a religious ceremony, performed for people who hold the same basic religious beliefs that I do. It is not a government activity.

This is patently false. Since this is OCDO and you're making the claim, the burden of providing a citation is upon you, my friend.

If I perform weddings and do not accept compensation, then I am not "a business" and am simply acting as a friend doing a wedding for friends.

If I accept compensation for performing weddings, then I am doing business.

If I deny someone the services of my business because they are a certain race, then I will be subject to a lawsuit for discrimination. Same thing beforeProp 8, a lawsuit was sure to be filed sooner or later. I believe it was in Massachusetts that acaterer, whose personal religious beliefs led her to not accept a contract to cater a lesbian wedding was sued, and lost. Therefore, any "business" who does not take the job because of their religious beliefs that homosexuality is SIN, would be subject to the same risk of lawsuits.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

Along that same line of thinking we should then be able to sue a company that won't allow us to OC on their property, but we can't.

 

[Aran]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

California's proposition 8 does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. It was the antithesis of your claim, and it goes a long way in protecting innocents under the law.

I don't think very many people believe this.

Liberty is doing what you want, when you want. As long as I am not violating the rights of another person I have the right to be left alone.

Further, a marriage license is not a religious contract. If it were, government regulation and taxation would be strictly prohibited.

Under current California laws, a couple who have formed a "Civil Union" have all the legal rights as a married couple. They simply fill out a different form.

As a Licensed Minister, I have not, nor will I ever "sanctify" a civil union with a religious ceremony.

I will however, sanctify a marraige, as it is a religious ceremony.

Prop 8 has far reaching implications for those of us who have religious affiliations. Before Prop 8, if I offered my services to marry Jill and John, in a religious ceremony, and I accept any monetary compensation for it, I would then be FORCED by law to also marry Bill and Ron if they asked me to perform their "wedding" ceremony. If I refused, I would be hit with a discrimination lawsuit and not be allowed to perform ANY weddings (religious ceremonies) in California, and I would be labeled as a bigot. When I perform a wedding, it is a religious ceremony, performed for people who hold the same basic religious beliefs that I do. It is not a government activity.

The license may be required by the State, but once the license has been granted, the ceremony is religious in nature.

I hate to be the one to point this out.. but you sound like a bigot, even without having refused to marry two men.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

Aran wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

California's proposition 8 does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. It was the antithesis of your claim, and it goes a long way in protecting innocents under the law.

I don't think very many people believe this.

Liberty is doing what you want, when you want. As long as I am not violating the rights of another person I have the right to be left alone.

Further, a marriage license is not a religious contract. If it were, government regulation and taxation would be strictly prohibited.

Under current California laws, a couple who have formed a "Civil Union" have all the legal rights as a married couple. They simply fill out a different form.

As a Licensed Minister, I have not, nor will I ever "sanctify" a civil union with a religious ceremony.

I will however, sanctify a marraige, as it is a religious ceremony.

Prop 8 has far reaching implications for those of us who have religious affiliations. Before Prop 8, if I offered my services to marry Jill and John, in a religious ceremony, and I accept any monetary compensation for it, I would then be FORCED by law to also marry Bill and Ron if they asked me to perform their "wedding" ceremony. If I refused, I would be hit with a discrimination lawsuit and not be allowed to perform ANY weddings (religious ceremonies) in California, and I would be labeled as a bigot. When I perform a wedding, it is a religious ceremony, performed for people who hold the same basic religious beliefs that I do. It is not a government activity.

The license may be required by the State, but once the license has been granted, the ceremony is religious in nature.

I hate to be the one to point this out.. but you sound like a bigot, even without having refused to marry two men.

I hate to point this out, but you sound like a left wing liberal. Anyone who holds beliefs that do not line up with your is either a bigot or closed minded.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Wait, so you've finally admitted your religion is a business?

At any rate, I suspect that Mass. story may be a myth. I've heard it numerous times, and whenever I look it up the only references are obscure mentions on blogs supporting prop 8. Not exactly credible sources. Honestly, it appears to be a made up, believable untruth designed to create an argument where previously there were none.

There was the lawsuit in Mass over the failure of a medical group to provide medical care to a lesbian woman. This suit was based on the Unruh Civil Rights Act and has nothing to do with gay marriage (I think this case, with its key details twisted around, it the source of the "caterer lawsuit" myth-until-I-see-a-citation). In this case, one can make the compelling argument that, since physicians essentially possess a state-imposed monopoly, they are subject to the same restrictions as any full-fledged government agency: i.e. no discrimination allowed.

As for lawsuits over discriminatory failure to marry by churches, you still didn't provide any actual evidence (I even looked for you and couldn't find it).

And as a little side note... Why the hell would anybody even want to sue a church to force it to marry them? This hasn't happened yet, and I don't really see it happening. It's one thing to sue over medical care (which may be a function of life and death), it's quite another to force someone on unfriendly terms to perform the ceremony for what it supposed to be a celebratory event. That just seems straight up masochistic, as well as sociopathic.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Under current California laws, a couple who have formed a "Civil Union" have all the legal rights as a married couple. They simply fill out a different form.

The SCOTUS has ruled that 'separate is inherently unequal.' Therefore, the idea of 'separate but equal' licensing is unconstitutional.

I do believe you are correct that equal rights creates a legal requirement for ministers to provide services without discrimination. Note that's a 'legal' obligation, not a moral one.

I feel your rights are infringed upon if you are forced to provide certain services. I think every business owner has the right to refuse service for ANY reason. Don't want to serve gun owners? Great. No blacks allowed? Fine. Gays need not apply? You're the boss. There will always be another entrepreneur willing to cater to them.

I think the free market punishes bigots well enough. We don't need the government getting involved until those bigots start passing gun control laws, burning the 'black-serving' shops, or passing laws barring liberty.