Peggy has a quesion regarding concealed carry laws and the SC gay marriage decision:
I just got this and want to know if anyone has the answer. Does this mean I can now buy a gun in Californa that’s been banned?
SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity:
The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify their argument:
Amendment XIV 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.
By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.
The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.
Read more at Bearing Arms
This can’t be right. It seems like by this logic, states couldn’t set their own policies about anything. That’s obviously not what the court intended and I’m not seeing how their wording could lead to the conclusion that concealed carry applies everywhere–the SC has never even ruled that individuals have the right to have guns anywhere outside their own homes.
The basis of the decision in the gay marriage case was equal protection. But no one is being denied equal protection in this case–in states without concealed carry the law applies to everyone, and no one group is singled out for unequal treatment.
In states that did not recognize gay marriage, men could marry women but women couldn’t, and women could marry men but men couldn’t. That was clear gender discrimination. The purpose was also clearly animus toward homosexuals, so it discriminates based on orientation too. Opponents of marriage equality were unable to provide any compelling reason for this unequal treatment; their arguments were all fallacious.
To clarify: the court did not rule that states must accept all licenses from other states. They ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. That’s why states must now accept marriage licenses from and give marriage licenses to same sex couples.
If a state wanted to say, “OK, we just won’t give marriage licenses out to anyone,” that would probably be constitutional, just as it’s now constitutional for states not to issue concealed carry licenses. By the same token, they could say they won’t recognize marriages performed out of states for anyone either. But they can’t say they’ll license one group of people and not another.
Besides, Loving v Virginia ruled that marriages of interracial couples had to be recognized in all states. If that didn’t force all states to recognize concealed carry permits, then why would this?
To be clear my purpose in asking is the gun I want to buy is banned in Calif. It’s called the Judge because judges in Florida carry it under their robes. It shoots both a bullet and a mini shotgun shell.
A friend of my brother in Nevada has one and she says it’s great for defense and shooting rattlesnakes. When I checked on it here I learned it’s banned because it’s considered a sawed off shotgun.
Now, I figure if it’s good enough for Florida judges I’d sure like to have one here in Calif.
On the conceal carry issue, here is more information from another article I can’t link to.
“Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.
Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“
Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.”
Peggy, its my understanding that a pistol that shoots a 4/10 shotgun shell would be illegal in Calif. In previous years I know that any pistol with an unrifled barrel is a California-defined “short barrel shotgun” and therefore illegal. If I can recall the code section I will let you know. California is a stupid stupid state… there’s no good reason why they do some of this stupid stuff, its just because they can.
“Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“
Again, no. The SC has never ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to anything other than keeping guns in one’s own home. So you have the right to bear arms, but not the right to bear arms wherever you please.
“Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.”
By this logic, there could be no limits to the 2nd Amendment at all.
Chris: “The SC has never ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to anything other than keeping guns in one’s own home.”
To Peggy’s point it doesn’t matter. If they are going to apply the due process clause to one personal choice then they should also do the same for other choices: “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy”
autonomy: the right or condition of self-government, especially in a particular sphere.
In the sphere of gun ownership it would seem the ruling applies.
This is the problem with the government deciding a personal choice is a “right.”
Marriage is a contract entered into by choice, it is not a right. The definition had to be changed to even argue the case. The court had to turn itself into knots to make marriage a “right” in the ruling. (Abortion is also a choice, not a right and that’s where the activist court got it’s start) In doing so they opened a can of worms. Guns are articulated in the Constitution as a specific right…to “keep and bear arms” which SHALL NOT BE…INFRINGED.
Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Shall not is also the strongest language that can be used in law…as opposed to can’t, shouldn’t
Tina, Obergefell did not have to decide that marriage is a right. That was already done in Loving v. Virginia in the 1960s.
Regardless of whether or not marriage is a right, equal protection would still mandate recognition of same-sex marriage. Driving is not a right, and yet states could not pass a law allowing men to drive but not women. Similarly, even if marriage were not considered a right, states would still need a compelling interest to deny marriage licenses to one class of people on the basis of their sex or orientation. Gay couples were denied marriage licenses on both of these bases. Even if marriage is not a right, equal protection clearly is, and that is what gay couples were previously denied.
““certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy”
One could easily argue that carrying guns in public is not merely a “personal” choice, as it effects people around you. But that would be meat for a separate Supreme Court case. This one has nothing to do with guns, and does nothing to mandate concealed carry everywhere. (Though the language could possibly be used as a precedent.)
Again, marriage was ruled a right in the late 60s, and states were forced to recognize interracial marriages performed out of state. If that didn’t mandate concealed carry everywhere, then why would this?
“Guns are articulated in the Constitution as a specific right…to “keep and bear arms” which SHALL NOT BE…INFRINGED.
Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Shall not is also the strongest language that can be used in law…as opposed to can’t, shouldn’t”
I have a hard time believing you oppose all infringements of the right to bear arms. Do you believe people have the right to carry hand grenades or rocket launchers? If not, why not?
The Loving v Virginia case did not decide marriage was between 2 men or 2 women. It was a race centered case, as you know.
Wikipedia’s simple recounting of the case:
The case was brought in 1967. Nobody had ever heard the term “gay marriage” then and would not for decades. When people, mostly men, started coming out, they referred to their relationships as an “alternative lifestyle.” They self described as having made an alternative life choice to live together as men and reject the usual lifestyle of heterosexuals. So in order to use this case as a precedent setting case the word marriage had to be redefined and marriage had to be deemed a right. Activist courts got busy doing just that.
According to this site the term “same sex unions” was used in Vermont:
Clearly in 2000 Vermont still considered gay unions as different than marriage between a man and a woman. It wasn’t until November of 2003 that the term “gay marriage” was used. So the term is only 13 years old.
I need to go. Back later.
Tina: “The Loving v Virginia case did not decide marriage was between 2 men or 2 women.”
I never said it did, so what is your point?
“So in order to use this case as a precedent setting case the word marriage had to be redefined and marriage had to be deemed a right.”
No, this is absolutely incorrect. Again, marriage was defined as a right in Loving v. Virginia:
Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the unanimous court held that: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision
So no, marriage equality supporters did not have to deem marriage a right in order to use Loving as a precedent; the ruling did that for them forty years ago.
Also again, the justices did not have to rule that marriage was a right in either Loving or Obergefell; equal protection is a right, with much more constitutional basis than marriage, and gay couples were denied that right by being refused marriage licenses.
Prior to Obergefell men could sign marriage contracts with women but women could not, and vice versa. There was no compelling reason for this, since there was nothing about the marriage contract that necessitated opposite gender partners; it was a requirement based on nothing other than tradition, with no relevance to how marriage is practiced today. The legal rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage are no longer different for men or women, as they used to be, so what was the rational purpose of ensuring that marriages had to be restricted to opposite sex couples? There was none. The “definition of a word” argument is not compelling. Words don’t have rights; people do.
“It wasn’t until November of 2003 that the term “gay marriage” was used. So the term is only 13 years old.”
This is also completely wrong. Gays have been getting married for much, much longer than that; these marriages simply weren’t recognized by law. Heck, I just watched a Seinfeld episode from 1992 in which Elaine attends a lesbian wedding. The term “gay marriage” clearly predates this millenium.
Some obscure African cultures have had gay marriage for centuries, and there is also this:
“A same-sex marriage between the two men Pero Dias and Munho Vandilas in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[75]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Use_of_term_marriage
But the newness of the term “gay marriage” has little bearing on its legitimacy. After all, there was a time when “women voting” was also a brand new phenomenon.
How many democracies allowed women to vote prior to the early 20th century, Tina? Should women’s suffrage have been denied on the basis that it had never been done before?
Given the historical imbalance in gender relations in nearly every culture thoughout the world, is it really surprising that gay couples were seen as being inherently different from straight couples? Even the idea of homosexuality as a separate orientation is new. Our understanding of gender and sexuality is different today. It makes sense that marriage would be different too.
And you’re also once again ignoring the many, many ways that marriage has changed throughout history, to the point where it would be virtually unrecognizable to someone even two centuries ago. But most of those changes have benefited you as a woman, so I guess those don’t count.
Chris: “…even if marriage were not considered a right, states would still need a compelling interest to deny marriage licenses to one class of people on the basis of their sex or orientation.” …
Only by definition. As I wrote above, prior to 2004 there was no such thing as the term “gay marriage” and everyone believed that marriage was a union of one man and one woman.
A Civil Unions is different.
Civil Union: A civil union, also referred to by a variety of other names, is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage.
I see no reason to deny two men or two women a civil union recognized by law. In my opinion that would have been the more likely avenue to pursue to obtain full equal protections. In fact, I think choosing to make marriage the issue was as much political as it was a rights or equal protection plea. It would also have shown respect for the institution of marriage but it’s not surprising that they didn’t, heterosexuals haven’t respected it since the fifties. Our society is reaping the result with broken homes, higher drop out rates, more crime, gangs, prolific drug use, and irresponsible sex with high abortion rates.
Words mean things.
“I have a hard time believing you oppose all infringements of the right to bear arms. Do you believe people have the right to carry hand grenades or rocket launchers? If not, why not?
First of all I should say I’m not an expert in weaponry, I’m not even an amateur, so you should keep that in mind as you read the following.
At the time the Supreme Law of the Land was written muskets were commonly used and rocket launchers didn’t exist (as we know them). (I suppose the equivalent might be a small canon. 🙂 ???) As far as I know grenades didn’t either.
Today I doubt if any law abiding person would choose to carry a rocket launcher or hand grenade instead of a gun unless he’s transporting them from one place to another. But even if he did what is the danger as long as he carries and uses it responsibly? Problems arise when someone chooses to break the law.
We have laws against murder, assault, rape, robbery, and terrorism. These, I would imagine, are quite sufficient.
There isn’t a law in the land, or the world that will prevent some people from breaking those laws. (Just ask the Nazi’s or ISIS). The way to discourage bad behavior is with severe penalties but neither the law nor the penalty will prevent a determined lawbreakers from doing his thing.
Gun control laws are just another aspect of central planning, a means of control by the few over the many.
All of our laws hold the expectation of responsible behavior…the courts are the way we decide guilt or innocence and mete out consequences after the fact. It’s not a perfect system but it’s the best we have.
Does that answer your question?
Tina: “Only by definition. As I wrote above, prior to 2004 there was no such thing as the term “gay marriage” and everyone believed that marriage was a union of one man and one woman.”
And as I wrote, that’s simply not true. Use of the term “gay marriage” in the U.S. predates 2004 by at least over a decade (and I’d wager many gays were having marriage ceremonies in the 70s and 80s), and “everyone” believed no such thing.
(You’re also ignoring that marriage in the Western world once included one man and many women, but you always do that.)
But the “definition of marriage” argument is a red herring. It ignores the existence of real, tangible things called marriage licenses. This is what gay couples were demanding access to, and opponents offered no convincing reasons why they should not have them. There was no legitimate reason to keep gay couples from receiving marriage licenses, since there is nothing married couples were legally required to do that gay couples could not do. Opponents offered “procreation” as one thing gay couples couldn’t do, but that is not required for marriage, and millions of straight marriages never do this. There’s certainly nothing in an American marriage contract that requires it. So opponents were at a loss to explain why gay couples shouldn’t gain access to marriage licenses. (Your proposed solution, civil unions, is nothing but “separate but equal” discrimination, essentially creating a new and redundant government license and beauracracy for no real purpose. So much for conservative principles.)
So instead your side tried to turn the conversation from one about access to legal documents and licenses to one about cultural definitions. These are always subjective, but you always pretend they are universal and timeless. This gives way to your premise that marriage has only ever meant one thing and one thing only, which you simply must know isn’t true.
I’d wager if you asked most people what marriage is, they’d say it’s a commitment between two people who promise to dedicate their lives to one another. I don’t think that definition shows disrespect for the union; certainly not as much as believing that marriage is solely for procreation, a position you have stated before, or that the only two requirements should be one penis and one vagina.
The truth is that marriage has many benefits to society: married people commit less crime, use less welfare, are more likely to be gainfully employed, more educated, live longer while requiring less government health services, are imprisoned at a lower rate, pay more in taxes, and generally are net contributors to rather than takers from society. All of these are compelling state interests; all can be fulfilled by both straight marriages and gay marriages alike.
And yet you focus entirely on procreation and biological parenting in your defense of opposite-sex-only marriage, neglecting all the other benefits of marriage. This is what is disrespectful to the institution, because you are reducing it to only a small part of why it is so important to society. Gays who merely wanted the same benefits you have always had have not disrespected the union, any more than Jackie Robinson disrespected baseball.
Ultimately, it is invariably those who fight to keep minorities out of their exclusive clubs who end up doing the most damage to them.
Off topic, but this article is so good I had to share.
A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency:
By Jonathan Turley
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/21/a-question-of-power-the-imperial-presidency/
Chris: “in Loving v. Virginia: Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the unanimous court held that: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”
Yes and marriage at the time was defined as between one man and one woman. Discrimination occurred in the case because one woman and one man were being denied marriage…like for like.
A man isn’t a woman and a woman isn’t a man. It’s that simple. In order to claim equal protection the very definitions and meaning of marriage, husband, wife, mother and father…even gender had to be changed.
Words mean things. The gay community and the courts decided to ignore the meanings of these words, indeed they mandated the alteration of them. This in itself sets a precedence…why should any word have meaning in our written documents if people can decide after the fact to change their meaning?
The unraveling of civilization doesn’t happen in a single decision or act but in hundreds of thousand of them over time. Welcome to the unraveling! You’re standing right in the middle of it, though you have no way of measuring it. At this age everything is brand new…and history in your experience has just begun.
““A same-sex marriage between the two men Pero Dias and Munho Vandilas in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel…”
Was it done in secret?
It’s not surprising that you would hold up an single obscure example from another time and culture. The percentage of gays in our population today is also quite small but that isn’t stopping the few from dictating to the many.
The definition of marriage was altered and noticed as appearing in Websters in 2009. USA Today; 03-18-2009:
Wikipedia’s timeline uses terms like civil unions, same sex partnerships, same sex couples, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships, life partnerships…anything but marriage until 2003 (Actually December 2002, Queen Beatrix, the Netherlands)
Looking back in history to prove your point doesn’t change the history of language use in this nation, nor does it change the long history of traditional marriage and accepted practice in many cultures over many centuries.
The words gay marriage may have been used within the gay community prior to 2002, I have no way of knowing what was said in private or community settings. I do know the term gay marriage was not used widely and the issue was not considered widely until after 2000. I’ve been around since 1947 and I spent a lot of that time in the Bay Area. I recall civil unions being discussed . I’m sure I would have noticed if the term gay marriage or same sex marriage was being used in public discourse.
“You’re also ignoring that marriage in the Western world once included one man and many women, but you always do that”
Once again the odd example. If you’re speaking of the Mormons a little related fact is that the practice came out of need. Many of the men died and that left their wives and children without a husband/father. The arrangement began out of necessity.
“This is what gay couples were demanding access to…”
Sure after they tossed the rebellious “alternate lifestyle choice” and rejected “civil unions” as not being good enough. This movement evolved over time…you were not there to see it. History did not begin when you were born.
” There was no legitimate reason to keep gay couples from receiving marriage licenses, since there is nothing married couples were legally required to do that gay couples could not do.”
Gay couples cannot produce a child together. If it were not for procreation there would be no need for marriage at all. Love was not the basis for marriage. Family, including the mother and the father of the children was the basis for marriage in our culture. It does not matter that not all couples “do this.” It matters that generally children have an intact family with their mother and their father taking the responsibility to raise them. Children have been the losers, generally, since the marriage laws were changed. This change, when children are involved, just tears at their relationships to their biological parents even more. Few seem to notice or care.
“The truth is that marriage has many benefits to society: married people commit less crime, use less welfare, are more likely to be gainfully employed, more educated, live longer while requiring less government health services, are imprisoned at a lower rate, pay more in taxes, and generally are net contributors to rather than takers from society. All of these are compelling state interests; all can be fulfilled by both straight marriages and gay marriages alike.”
So can they be fulfilled with straight marriages and civil unions. The paperwork isn’t that dissimilar and the language surrounding the word marriage is preserved. I have never thought of civil unions as separate or unequal, just different. It makes sense in an alternative lifestyle (their word not mine) mindset. I fully supported civil unions and thought they should include the benefits and obligations of marriage. I just do not like the idea of pretending gay relationships are and represent the same thing when they do not.
“…any more than Jackie Robinson disrespected baseball.”
Race is not a lifestyle choice.
I’m beat and we have beat this issue to a bloody pulp. We will never agree. I’m ready to let it go. Have a good night, Chris.
Tina: “Yes and marriage at the time was defined as between one man and one woman.”
Irrelevant to what I was responding to, which was your false claim that Obergefell invented the right to marriage.
“A man isn’t a woman and a woman isn’t a man. It’s that simple.”
It really isn’t, because that does nothing to explain why marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples.
That line has also been used to oppose everything from women’s suffrage to women wearing pants. In Saudi Arabia it’s used to justify bans on female drivers. Do you think you’re the first generation to use “the genders are just different” as a reason for discrimination? The difference is that this particular change, unlike most changes in marriage throughout history, doesn’t personally benefit you. I’m curious as to whether you would have accepted “A man isn’t a woman and a woman isn’t a man” from proponents of, say, coverture laws. Or who knows–maybe you would have been one of the women standing in defense of this “tradition.”
“In order to claim equal protection the very definitions and meaning of marriage, husband, wife, mother and father…even gender had to be changed.”
Silly. How has your marriage or your relationship to your husband changed as a result of this ruling?
The fact is that words change as cultures change. Every poll shows that the majority of Americans support gay marriage. Do you know what year it was when the majority of Americans finally supported interracial marriage? 1991. The Supreme Court in this case trailed public opinion, they didn’t mandate it. The Loving court was actually far more activist. Had they waited for public opinion to support them interracial bans may have held until the early 90s.
“Once again the odd example. If you’re speaking of the Mormons”
It’s not an odd example and I’m not speaking of the Mormons. I’m speaking of several cultures throughout history which tolerated and even held as ideal polygamous marriages. You’re a Christian; you can’t possibly be unfamiliar with this history, as some of your most cherished prophets had multiple wives.
Stop saying “marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.” It’s not true, and you know it’s not true.
“Many of the men died and that left their wives and children without a husband/father. The arrangement began out of necessity.”
And gay marriages didn’t begin out of necessity? Have you not heard the stories of people being forbidden from visiting their dying partners in the hospital, or do you just not care?
“Sure after they tossed the rebellious “alternate lifestyle choice” and rejected “civil unions” as not being good enough.”
Because it wasn’t. You’re acting like the gay movement is a hive mind and they all tricked you into thinking they were happy with separate but equal. Of course the change was incremental. No less than 15 years ago it was still a crime in some states to be gay. The fact that the movement evolved over time does not invalidate their current demands.
Your argument seems to amount to nothing more than “change is bad and scary and I don’t like it,” which is not terribly convincing.
“History did not begin when you were born.”
No, it began when you were born, which is why you ignore every single change to the institution of marriage prior to this one.
“Gay couples cannot produce a child together.”
Thank you for proving my point. As I said, there is no legal requirement of marriage that gay couples are unable to fulfill. Producing a child together is not a legal requirement of marriage.
“If it were not for procreation there would be no need for marriage at all.”
As I showed you, this is simply wrong. I gave you seven other societal benefits of marriage that both procreative and non-procreative couples can fulfill. You have never acknowledged these other benefits. Your position that procreation is the one and only reason for marriage is insulting and demeaning to the millions of childless marriages out there, as well as all those who got married for reasons other than procreation. Again, it is the opponents of equality who are really demeaning marriage, not the gays.
“Love was not the basis for marriage.”
It has been for a very long time.
“Family, including the mother and the father of the children was the basis for marriage in our culture.”
And we have long tolerated marriages that have no children, that have children from previous marriages, and that have adopted children. Your insistence that we draw the line at gays is arbitrary.
“It does not matter that not all couples “do this.””
In the eyes of the law, it absolutely does. The law should not draw arbitrary distinctions, only necessary ones. This strikes me as a plainly conservative principle; it’s strange that you don’t share it.
“This change, when children are involved, just tears at their relationships to their biological parents even more.”
How? You’ve claimed before that allowing gay marriage hurts children but I’ve never once seen you explain this position. To quote you, explain the mechanism.
Who are the children that would otherwise be raised by their biological parents that won’t be now that gay marriage is federally recognized? How does recognizing gay marriage take a single child from their biological parents?
“Few seem to notice or care.”
OK, so make me notice. Make me care. Explain how exactly gay marriage hurts kids. I can’t care about something if I don’t see any evidence that it’s happening.
Opponents of equality have said for a very long time that they oppose gay marriage because “every child deserves a mother and a father” but I never see them explain the connection between the premise and the conclusion. How does gay marriage make any child less likely to be raised by their mother and father? Gay married couples aren’t stealing children from their biological parents, are they?
“So can they be fulfilled with straight marriages and civil unions. The paperwork isn’t that dissimilar and the language surrounding the word marriage is preserved…I fully supported civil unions and thought they should include the benefits and obligations of marriage.”
What is the purpose of having two sets of legal documents, two separate licenses, and two bureaucracies that both give out the exact same set of benefits and obligations? To preserve the definition of a word that has been extremely malleable throughout history? That’s plain silly, not to mention un-conservative.
“I have never thought of civil unions as separate or unequal, just different.”
Good for you. I’m sure many segregationists felt the same way. But we don’t privilege the feelings of segregationists over the rights of minorities anymore.
“I just do not like the idea of pretending gay relationships are and represent the same thing when they do not.”
They do not represent the same thing to you. Millions of others–in fact, the majority of Americans–disagree with you. Respect their choices.
It’s my understanding that if a gay couple wants a civil union they can still do that. They can also get married. Your suggestion here is that we limit people’s choices, whereas gay marriage supporters want choices expanded. Which one is more conducive to freedom?
Chris we will never agree about the choice the gay community made to pursue marriage rather than their beloved “alternative lifestyle,” nor whether they had to change the definitions of words to even make their case. You believe they have the same position as blacks had when marriage was denied them on the basis of their race; I do not. You believe marriage is a right; I do not. You believe my arguments are about “my marriage” rather than about altering the dictionary and meanings of words or upholding a basic community standard to protect children and support families in remaining intact. You believe my position is based on my religion; it is not. I believe civil unions gave gays a similar option without turning the meaning of marriage on its head; you do not. I believe contracts can be legally made to allow for things like visitors in the hospital without turning marriage on its head; and you do not. I have explained many of my positions before. For instance, I have explained that changing the marriage laws delivered the first blows to the well being of children and their natural right to be raised by their biological parents rather than being shifted back and forth, having to deal with mom’s boyfriends or stepparents, or living in poverty because of what we call a “dead beat dad,” who is often denied access to his own children. This current blow to the definition of marriage doesn’t represent a huge impact, it involves a minority in the population, but it does tack on to the notion that marriage and family can mean anything we say they do and children are secondary considerations. Civil unions are/were as meaningful as marriage, in terms of making a commitment and providing for children from a former marriages, artificial insemination, or adoption. The choice to demand marriage instead was, to me, selfish and immature.
“Respect their choices. ”
I have never disrespected their choices. Despite the courts decision, I do still have the right to my opinion and I am not required to change it so you can feel comfortable or feel satisfied that there are no legitimate opposing opinions. How about YOU respect that!
“Your suggestion here is that we limit people’s choices…”
Laughable, given that your voice represents the voices on the left that are the most limiting, restricting, and controlling faction in America! The thing is, you’re all for freedom and choice on you terms only, even if you have to change definitions to get it.
There really is no point in discussing it further.
Tina: “Chris we will never agree about the choice the gay community made to pursue marriage rather than their beloved “alternative lifestyle,” nor whether they had to change the definitions of words to even make their case.”
Of course not. You will never acknowledge that the definition of marriage has changed many other times throughout history, so you view this change in the definition as something unprecedented rather than as something natural.
“Civil unions are/were as meaningful as marriage, in terms of making a commitment and providing for children from a former marriages, artificial insemination, or adoption.”
And yet you have never suggested that we change the law to force straight people who remarry, artificially inseminate or adopt to settle for “civil unions” instead of marriage. Nor, to my knowledge, has any other opponent of SSM. This tells me everything about the weakness of your position.
You say that gay couples are different because they can’t procreate, but you’re not trying to stop any other non-procreative couple from getting married. This is prima facie evidence of bias. I’m not saying you hate gay people, that’s obviously not true, I’m saying that you were raised in a culture and a generation which did not take the concerns of gay people seriously, and as a result you see their concerns as less important than those of others. This is why you think there should be a procreation rule for marriage that only applies to gay couples and not straight couples. It’s still bigotry, but it’s not based on hatred, it’s based on a lack of experience and cultural messaging that told you all your life you were more important than those people. And really, that’s what most bigotry is.
It is no surprise that gay marriage came to prominence so shortly after gays were accepted by society as normal people and not perverts and criminals. Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to think of this as some crazy coincidence, but it’s not. Accepting gay relationships as valid and worthy led directly to acceptance of gay marriage. In our culture, marriage is the main way that people pledge to commit to each other for life. Not “civil unions.” Marriage. There is no reason gay people can’t do that.
“I have never disrespected their choices.”
Voting to forcibly annul someone else’s legal marriage (regardless of whether you think it matches your personal definition of the term) is of course a show of disrespect toward that choice.
“Despite the courts decision, I do still have the right to my opinion and I am not required to change it so you can feel comfortable or feel satisfied that there are no legitimate opposing opinions.”
Of course you’re not required to change your opinion. I think you should change it, not to make me feel better, but because it’s irrational–your conclusions don’t follow from your premises. I already feel satisfied that there are no legitimate opposing opinions–I’ve never heard a logical argument against same-sex marriage, and yours have been easily dismissed. I’m sorry if that sounds cocky, but it’s true. Your arguments don’t make sense, and they’re not consistent with history, law, the constitution, or even each other.
But I’ve made my points in all of those regards, and I don’t feel the need to say any more.
From a recent news release:
Recently at Iowa state fair, where Cruz told Ellen page (Actress) when she tried to ambush him over GLT issues “There is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business,” Cruz told Page”.
But you have to consider this, when it comes to Liberal ideology it is
ALL ABOUT THEM!
Harold you nailed it!
They don’t tolerate the Christian view, they don’t tolerate the secular view if it’s different, and they sure as heck put children last. Children! The most vulnerable (abortion) and those requiring stability and guidance (divorce or marriage based on love) . Then ,after a mess is made in children’s lives, they try to fix it with bigger and better government programs.
Harold, you wrote that Cruz said ““There is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.”
Cruz is incorrect. No one has been fined or driven out of business for following a “Biblical teaching of marriage that is the union of one man and one woman.” (The Bible also teaches that marriage is the union of one man and many women, but I digress.)
People have been fined or driven out of business to trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. Business owners don’t get to choose to refuse service to people because they think those people are doing something that violates their religion.
For example, I might believe that it is wrong and sinful for someone to marry one’s high school geometry teacher, have an extramarital affair, divorce said wife while she’s dying of cancer, then marry one’s mistress, then divorce and remarry again. I might actually think my religion prohibits virtually all of those activities.
But if Newt Gingrich comes into my bakery and asks for a wedding cake, I still have to provide one for him. I don’t get to pretend that by doing so I’m violating my own religion or giving approval to the wedding. I’m simply following anti-discrimination law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Marriages_
Liberals resisting laws cause they dont suit yer purpose, then ya tweak n’ twist the suckers till what good they had is jes cow pie.
Progressive is a good label to explain yer thinkin’ cause things gets progressively worst off went your a done flubmonkeyin’ with it. All you Libers be jes a bunch of no accounts, plain and simple
HeHe, Does my heart good to see Peggy thrown’ it back at cha. Girl, go get ya sum
Oh ya Ms Peggy, that Judge is a sweet litl’ shooter, get cha one ifn’ ya can
Wish I could, but looks like as long as I live in a Democrat controlled state it ain’t going to happen. Nevada is looken better and better these days.
cbs News:
abc news
He was driven to change his business by a couple of guys who refused to shrug it off and walk down the street. There is no dignity in pursuing a discrimination case if you are willing to disrespect a shop owners religious beliefs. The exercise of ones religion is protected in the Constitution. Property rights are protected in the Constitution. A cake does not belong to anyone until it is paid for.
Customers have choices about where they do business and are free to choose another business…people do it every day.
Other Christian business owners have been sued:
Question: Is it okay for states to write laws that are in conflict with or obstruct Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms? The Supreme Court will decide, if it takes the case, but I don’t hold out much hope that religious freedom will win in this court.
Religious freedom is at the heart of the founding of this nation and the Constitution. The right to exercise ones religion is expressed right at the beginning of the First Amendment.
These men and women are not being assigned to the back of the bus, they are not being denied the right to buy a cake or hire a photographer. They have a choice in the matter too. They can look elsewhere for a baker that is supportive of them. Instead of being tolerant themselves they chose to be petty and demanding. They chose to be activists bullies. Practice what you preach!
Tina, Phillips ultimately made the right decision. He can either sell wedding cakes to everyone, or he can sell them to no one. You don’t get to choose what customers you will serve on the basis of orientation, any more than you get to choose what customers you will serve on the basis of race. (And yes, many business owners at one time did believe their religious views mandated racial segregation).
Business owners can choose what to sell; it’s my understanding that Phillips wasn’t being required to write “Congratulations on your big gay wedding, Clinton/Biden 2016” on the cake. He was simply being asked to bake a standard wedding cake for a same-sex couple. You can’t say that you will perform a service for one group of people but not the same service for a different group. That’s basic civil rights law. Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to refuse to bake wedding cakes for couples who remarry?
Phillips said, “I don’t want to participate in a same-sex wedding.” How is making and selling a cake “participation?” I doubt most people see bakers and florists as “participants” in their weddings. Baking and selling cakes is a pretty value-neutral activity. Saying that baking a cake for a gay wedding amounts to “participation” in same-sex marriage is like saying the bakers who made Newt Gingrich’s cakes participated in adultery.
I would make an accommodation for photographers, since that is arguably a more artistic activity, and they have to actively go to the wedding and “participate” to a degree. A baker or a florist doesn’t have that unreasonable burden, and their products are more standard and commercial than artistic expression.
“Question: Is it okay for states to write laws that are in conflict with or obstruct Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms?”
No, but sometimes different freedoms conflict with each other. You have the right to religious freedom. You also have the right to equal treatment. The Civil Rights Act decided that businesses cannot interfere with this right. So even if your religion tells you that black people are under the Curse of Ham and are inherently sinful, you still have to serve them in your restaurant. That’s basic civil rights law. The only change is that now this also covers orientation, so businesses can’t discriminate against you for being gay (or straight, or bi, or asexual for that matter).
No, you could make the argument that the Civil Rights Act was wrong, and businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to. You’ll face a lot of opposition, but that would at least be consistent.
Chris you said, “You don’t get to choose what customers you will serve on the basis of orientation…”
But his decision wasn’t about their “orientation;” it was about his personal religious convictions. It isn’t ALL ABOUT THEM” as Harold wrote. In terms of intolerance this couple loses…they were petty and intolerant. If it were about “orientation” he would not have said he would be happy to bake birthday cakes and other items for them.
“Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to refuse to bake wedding cakes for couples who remarry?”
Yes, if his conscience directs him thus. Freedom to exercise the expression of ones religion is just as well protected under the Constitution…as are property rights.
I take exception to your words, “be allowed.” It is indicative of the mindset that says we are not free citizens but subjects directed and controlled by our rulers and bullies who can’t live and let live over something as simple as a cake. It’s not like large swaths of cake bakers are boycotting them, in fact, just the opposite is true.
“How is making and selling a cake ‘participation?’”
The thing is YOU don’t get to decide whether it seems like participation for others…nor should our government!
“So even if your religion tells you that black people are under the Curse of Ham and are inherently sinful, you still have to serve them in your restaurant. That’s basic civil rights law.”
We were talking about tolerance. Harold’s comment was that activists like these come from a position that it’s all about them. THEY do not have to consider the convictions of others which, in terms of tolerance is absurd.
“The only change is that now this also covers orientation, so businesses can’t discriminate against you for being gay (or straight, or bi, or asexual for that matter).
We might need to add religion to that long list of the slighted even though the Constitution already has guaranteed not just freedom of religion but also the free exercise of that religion, religious conscience! It’s not ALL ABOUT special interest groups…others have rights too. They should at least have the expectation that they will not be harassed and sued over a small thing like a cake. These guys were not being denied food or housing, they were not even being denied a cake. They could go down the street and someone else would bake for them…there is NO WIDESPREAD discrimination, which is what I think the civil rights laws are meant to address.
My point has often been that activists on the left always go to far…this is a great example of the intolerance that drives it. In your world there is no room for religiously convicted Americans…not even nuns.
A lot of Americans are sick and tired of the pushy, in your face, bullying. If tolerance and rights are the subject, the gay community needs to practice these values themselves.
Tina: “But his decision wasn’t about their “orientation;” it was about his personal religious convictions.”
His decision was obviously about both; he’s not against weddings, he’s against same-sex weddings, so obviously his decision was about their orientation, which he sees as violating his personal religious convictions.
I don’t recall the Bible ever saying anything about not serving gay people wedding cakes. If he believes it’s a sin to get gay married, he doesn’t have to get gay married. He also doesn’t have to attend any or have any affiliation with them in his private life. I don’t see why he should be able to discriminate at his place of business.
Me: “Should a devout Catholic baker be allowed to refuse to bake wedding cakes for couples who remarry?”
Tina: “Yes, if his conscience directs him thus.”
OK, but know that the law disagrees with you, and has for some time.
“We might need to add religion to that long list of the slighted”
No, we don’t, because it’s already on the list. Religion is a protected category under civil rights law too–you can’t turn someone away from your business for being a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu, any more than you can turn someone away for being gay. This means a gay baker can’t say “I don’t bake cakes for Christian weddings” without being sued, and losing.
“They could go down the street and someone else would bake for them…there is NO WIDESPREAD discrimination, which is what I think the civil rights laws are meant to address.”
Now this is a solid argument; your best yet on this issue. There is definitely a case to be made that many civil rights laws aren’t necessary any more, since most people can find a place of business that will serve them without any undue hardship. Most libertarians take this position. I’m not convinced by it, but I do see the merit; perhaps you’ll convince me one day.
Chris: “This means a gay baker can’t say “I don’t bake cakes for Christian weddings” without being sued, and losing. ”
Which goes to the heart of Harold’s comment…most people who believe in and appreciate freedom, tolerance of others, and the “live and let live” posture that has made it possible to LIVE IN PEACE in this nation with people of differing faiths and beliefs is being destroyed by activist control freaks.
“Most libertarians take this position. I’m not convinced by it, but I do see the merit; perhaps you’ll convince me one day. ”
I honestly hope so. Tolerance is a two way street.