Patriotism/Guns

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>I have a question: didn't CA voters pass the no gay marriages thing?

Yep, just as 68% of Virginia voters opposed interracial marriage when the courts made that statement. Doesn't make it right. If a local mayor had been doing interracial marriages back then, I would have supported him in his efforts.

>I just think that there is a better way to go about deciding the issue
>than how it was done.

I agree, but better a poor effort than no effort.

since this is your position, I'm curious what you'd have to say about this: clicky

[edit]
see reulting thread here

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,116]

>since this is your position, I'm curious what you'd have to say about this . . .

I would say that it deserves a new gun thread! I'll get right on that.

But no problem. If he wants to carry his AR-15 to the capital, go ahead. He'll get arrested, and that may call the attention he wants to his cause. (And yes, you could also arrest the 6000 people who got married, if you want.)

[Kennedy 0]

see "attention getter"

[it hasn't gotten much attention]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Nightingale 0]

the difference between the two situations is that California law is not clear cut.

We have two conflicting legal documents. The first, Prop 22, says marriage is only between a man and a woman, which denys a certian status to gays and lesbians. Pretty clear cut.

HOWEVER... the california constitution (which overrides laws, just like the US constitution... a law can get overturned because it is unconstitiutional in that state because of what the state constitution says) says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, color, religion, family status, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

We have two conflicting documents, and the document that takes precedent by law is the state constitution. The position of the San Francisco Mayor is that a law is not valid if it violates the state constitution, and that he is in violation of the state constitution if he continues to allow the city to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He does actually have a fairly good legal leg to stand on. Looks like about the only way conservatives will get their way on this one is by amending the state constitution, which probably, like Massachusetts, isn't going to happen.

[Guest]

The trouble is, where does it end?

If something as un-natural as homosexual "marriage" is tolerated, then society by default can have no objection to bigamy, incest, or beastiality. If a man wants to have multiple wives, or marry his sister or his neice, or a woman wants to marry her horse, who are we then to object?

Squawk all you like, but I haven't seen rational arguments for why such things can't / won't happen, only shrill cries of "HOMOPHOBE!" These do nothing to address the real issue - the decline of Wesern civilization, which appears to be picking up speed lately.

NAMBLA must be loving this, because there will be one less obstacle in the way of their "loving" underage boys.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Nightingale 0]

of course you can argue against poligamy, beastiality, and pedophilia.

those laws apply to EVERYONE, the same.

NOBODY is allowed to marry more than one person, or molest children or animals.

the argument for gay marriage is that it denys a status to TWO consenting ADULT HUMANS that is permitted to two other consenting adult humans. Either let nobody do it or let everybody do it. Either way, the law must apply equally to everyone.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

We have two conflicting legal documents. The first, Prop 22, says marriage is only between a man and a woman, which denys a certian status to gays and lesbians. Pretty clear cut.

HOWEVER... the california constitution (which overrides laws, just like the US constitution... a law can get overturned because it is unconstitiutional in that state because of what the state constitution says) says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, color, religion, family status, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Article 1 Section 1 of the constitution of California states

Quote

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Unfortuantely, CA is one of only a few states whit no clause specifically mentioning a right to keep or bear arms.

I don't know the CA constitution as well as say the US or MD, but I couldn't find anything mentioning sexual orientation. What section "says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, color, religion, family status, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION?"

Besides, if it so clearly contradicts the state constitution, wouldn't it be better to have the state courts throw out the law than to simply disregard it?

Quote

We have two conflicting documents, and the document that takes precedent by law is the state constitution. The position of the San Francisco Mayor is that a law is not valid if it violates the state constitution, and that he is in violation of the state constitution if he continues to allow the city to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He does actually have a fairly good legal leg to stand on. Looks like about the only way conservatives will get their way on this one is by amending the state constitution, which probably, like Massachusetts, isn't going to happen.

California law is clear on banning X number of firearms and prohibiting their carry. But the constitution says people have the right to do things that firearms can accomplish. Would you agree to say, the mayor of San Diego issuing concealed carry permits because he thinks that 's what the state constitution says, while state lwaw forbids it?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Nightingale 0]

simple.

the court cannot throw out a law until that law is brought before them.

the law must be brought before them via a lawsuit. San Francisco has simply provided the plaintiffs for that lawsuit.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

the argument for gay marriage is that it denys a status to TWO consenting ADULT HUMANS that is permitted to two other consenting adult humans. Either let nobody do it or let everybody do it. Either way, the law must apply equally to everyone.

So you're against gambling laws, drinking laws, and prostitution laws, and drug laws, and...am I missing any?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

the court cannot throw out a law until that law is brought before them.

the law must be brought before them via a lawsuit. San Francisco has simply provided the plaintiffs for that lawsuit.

You don't need a fiasco to bring a law suit. Any one of them could have sued without getting fake married. Come on. Besides, the state is refusing to recognize the "marriages" anyway.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

Moving back to the original premise of the post, interesting, Kennedy.

I wonder if it weren't so "over the top", if it would be allowed. I know that when I went to court once I had a cannister of pepper spray. As this was prior to my being a blackbelt, it was my only means of protection aside from carrying a gun with me. The spray was confiscated, and, as a result, I am now far more lethal should I ever need to be than I ever would have with a can of pepper spray.

Had I had a gun in my purse, I would've been in serious trouble. I knew enough to leave the gun at home. But I won't leave my hands/feet at home. The pepper spray would've created a "flee" opportunity - which would've been preferable to what I am left with. Now, instead of being able to create an opportunity to leave a bad situation, I am left with engaging - and likely hurting very badly - the bad guy.

If the courts are unwilling to enforce a law, as in the gay marriage, the selection of causes (as opposed to my legal constitutional right to bear arms) seems to be prejudiced as well. Whether it is or not remains to be seen, I suppose, but if I had a .38 snub, I would've been arrested on the spot, regardless of how illegal that law is...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Nightingale 0]

just talked to the city attorney... its not the constitution, but the Unruh Civil Rights Act. My bad. So, basically, we've got two laws that contradict each other. Follow one law, break the other. Cities have traditionally chosen to follow the law established by prop 22, and disregard the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The mayor of SF simply did the reverse.


From the California state website:

Question: Can an establishment deny service to individuals becase of their sexual orientation?

Answer: No. The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by all business establishments in California.

Unruh Civil Rights Act


This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of:
Age
Ancestry
Color
Disability
National Origin
Race
Religion
Sex
Sexual Orientation*

*The protection afforded under the law is extended by case law to include sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation includes persons who are homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.



Also, it seems as though Prop 22 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US constitution (amendment 14):

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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Nightingale 0]

You are deliberately missing my point.

I don't care WHAT the law says. Only that it be applied EQUALLY to all ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.

If you're going to pass a drug law, go for it. Just don't say "only gay people are prohibited from using drugs" or "only black people are prohibited from using drugs" or "only women are prohibited from using drugs" A law must apply equally to all people.

If you're going to allow men to marry women, you must allow women to marry women. If you're going to allow women to marry men, you must allow men to marry men. Otherwise, its gender discrimination, and granting a priveledge to certain groups based on gender, which is illegal under the 14th amendment and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

[Michele 1]

Quote

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

So, does that mean I can carry my gun in my purse?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,116]

> then society by default can have no objection to bigamy, incest, or
> beastiality. If a man wants to have multiple wives, or marry his
> sister or his neice, or a woman wants to marry her horse, who are we
>then to object?

Not society's place to determine who can marry who; that's up to a person's church. It is society's place to decide who can be in civil unions, and that includes any two sane adults. (And no, sheep are not adults.)

>Squawk all you like, but I haven't seen rational arguments for why
>such things can't / won't happen, only shrill cries of "HOMOPHOBE!"

Exactly the same reason that interracial marriages should be allowed. Because the two people involved, not the state, should decide who should be in unions and who shouldn't.

>NAMBLA must be loving this . . .

The second time you've brought NAMBLA into an unrelated discussion. I'm going to call that a Godwin's Rule violation, where a bogeyman (Hitler or, in this case, NAMBLA) is used in an attempt to win an argument.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So, does that mean I can carry my gun in my purse?

Yes, just go get a concealed carry permit just like everyone else has to. Although you probably won't get it issued to you. But, it won't be because of your minority status.

[Michele 1]

Quote

But, it won't be because of your minority status.

But I am a minority - I'm a woman, and things are passed to protect my gender....so can't I just exploit that?

Interesting side note...Dianne Feinstein, our most exalted and revered Senator, carries concealed, and has for years; she will (and has) done everything she can do to prevent me - a lowly wee citizen - from even owning one...let alone carrying one.

Thus the paradox....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Nightingale 0]

its always been easier for public figures to get CCWs. Simply by being in the public eye, they are in a situation where they are more likely to need them.

However, I think any non-felon adults should be granted a CCW after proving a mastry of gun safety and a reasonable marksmanship skill. Kinda like a driver's test, but for gun owners. What the hell's the point of carrying a weapon if you're either going to shoot yourself in the foot because you don't know any better, or can't hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces?

[rehmwa 2]

My brother got killed by a barn in an argument gone bad.

I practice shooting and hand to hand combat with the 'broad side of a barn' mockup 5 hours a day to be ready for the day I find him.

revenge will be mine

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Kennedy 0]

Well, suppose this should have been back in the original thread, but we're here so let's deal with it.

Quote

From the California state website:

Question: Can an establishment deny service to individuals becase of their sexual orientation?

Answer: No. The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by all business establishments in California.

Unruh Civil Rights Act

This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of:
a, b, c,
Sexual Orientation*

That says it applies to business and reasons why they can or cannot deny services. Doesn't say anything about a state definition of a centuries old institution.

FYI - I oppose how the mayor of SF went about this, not necessarily what he is doing. I question a great deal of that, too, but would not condemn it outright.

Quote

Also, it seems as though Prop 22 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US constitution (amendment 14):

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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not in the slightest. The 14th basically means states cannot be more restrictive on people's rights than the federal government can. This is one of a set of laws passed immediately following the civil war, and was one more way of says states are subordinate to federal authority. At this time, people went from saying "the United States are..." to saying "the United States is...."

If you want to talk about equal protection, let's talk about how two federal appeals courts have completely contradictory rulings on what the 2nd amendment says (that would be the 9th circus and the 5th circuit). People falling under one circuit have a recognized right to keep and bear arms, while people in the 9th have an unrecognized right, and so face prosecution and often persecution.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Deuce 1]

A couple more recess appointments and ole' W will have this whole thing turned around!

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

its always been easier for public figures to get CCWs. Simply by being in the public eye, they are in a situation where they are more likely to need them.

Really? Feinstein, with her taxpayer provided security force, secluded mansion, protected workplace, etc, is more likely to face a criminal confrontation? I doubt it.

Quote

However, I think any non-felon adults should be granted a CCW after proving a mastry of gun safety and a reasonable marksmanship skill. Kinda like a driver's test, but for gun owners. What the hell's the point of carrying a weapon if you're either going to shoot yourself in the foot because you don't know any better, or can't hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces?

What do you think is "mastery" of gun safety? Or "reasonable" marksmanship? Who gets to decide that for the rest of us? Personally, I'd want people carrying firearms educated a hell of a lot better than 90% of drivers on the road today. That's why I support firearms education in schools.

I haven't heard anything about Vermont or Alaskan residents shooting themselves in the foot, have you? In those two states, citizens are allowed, no let me rephrase that, the right of citizens to keep and bear is recognized without a permit. No license, no test, no government intervention in a state and federal right.

Driving a car is a priviledge. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

um, that's called premeditated homicide with malice aforethought...

you may want to be careful with that...
.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skydyvr 0]

I think your argument loses a little ground with poligamy and incest.

Quote

the argument for gay marriage is that it denys a status to TWO consenting ADULT HUMANS that is permitted to two other consenting adult humans.

Why shouldn't the same argument be applied to consenting partakers of incest?

Quote

Either let nobody do it or let everybody do it. Either way, the law must apply equally to everyone.

That's fine, but how is it not discrimination to deny the above mentioned (and poligamists) equal rights under those kinds of laws?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,116]

>Why shouldn't the same argument be applied to consenting
>partakers of incest?

Is it your position that if two partners are not married they will not have intercourse?

I'm all for civil unions between any two consenting sane people - man and woman, man and man, relatives. It's a legal union only, and makes it easier to collect survivor's benefits, have power of attorney when the other is incapacitated etc. For the most part it's not that useful between relatives because they already have many of those rights.

Then for marriages - leave that up to the churches. Let them marry whoever they want. Want to marry your dog? Go to the Church of the Holy Schnauzer. Think that's absurd? Think marriage is a holy sacrament, intended to raise children in a loving environment? Then belong to a church that only marries fertile men and fertile women.