will the homosexuals be happy now ?

[Mattimusmaximus]

Jesus doesn't cry about such matters ... now, a flood, frogs, etc .. that's a different story

Last time Jesus cried chuck Norris was born.


-Matt of Hillsboro OR-

 

[Mattimusmaximus]

I find it pretty ironic when gun owners get butthurt about gay rights. We can't pick and choose who gets to exercise basic human rights. Honestly, the only arguments against marriage equality are religious in nature. Well we don't live in a Christian country. This is not a theocracy. Everybody has the right to the pursuit of happiness and everybody has the right to live their lives without fear of oppression. Can we fight tooth and nail about the people trying to strip our 2a rights while simultaneously trying to keep another group of American citizens down just because we don't agree with their life style? Is that not extremely hypocritical?

+ there are so many advantages to having the same rights, they can have wedding(spend money) and adopt kids(spend money) and get divorced(spend money). I don't see anything wrong with it I have my own beliefs.. I may think that from my religious standpoint it's ok, but from a person who believes we should all have the same rights... it's a big step and well needed.. Peace to all and a gun in every house


-Matt of Hillsboro OR-

 

[jhfc]

On the other hand, as someone who is divorced and forks over a large chunk of change to the ex every month:

WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO GET MARRIED?

/tongue only partially in cheek

 

[nobama]

They have always had the same rights. A woman can mary any man she wants and a guy can do the same with any woman he wants. The problem is its a moral decline of the family. I dont care what they do, just dont pretend that everybody needs to accept it. I dont and wont raise my kids to think its ok.The left has been indoctrinating our kids for a long time, not only about this but guns, our founding fathers, and so much more. Its a left wing issue and with all left wing issues there is nothing good to become of it. Family means something to alot of us and it doesnt mean two mommys or two daddys or a daddy with a dog or frog or cow whatever.This failed on the ballots in California of all places, but the courts went beyond the will of the people and passed it anyway. Is that liberty? No.

 

[Mattimusmaximus]

I agree with you on that point alone if it failed on the ballet it should never have passed that. It's suppose to be put to a vote.


-Matt of Hillsboro OR-

 

[Ca Patriot]

I find it pretty ironic when gun owners get butthurt about gay rights. We can't pick and choose who gets to exercise basic human rights. Honestly, the only arguments against marriage equality are religious in nature. Well we don't live in a Christian country. This is not a theocracy. Everybody has the right to the pursuit of happiness and everybody has the right to live their lives without fear of oppression. Can we fight tooth and nail about the people trying to strip our 2a rights while simultaneously trying to keep another group of American citizens down just because we don't agree with their life style? Is that not extremely hypocritical?

The humans have been on this earth for about 8,000 years and there has NEVER been same sex marriages until about 30 years ago.

Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity in the context of the history of humans on earth.

Gun rights advocates should be jealous of gay marriage. There is a CLEAR and EXPLICIT right to keep and bear arms in America. There is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage in America.

How ironic that California is now rushing to legalize same sex marriage and trampling gun rights in an unprecedented manner.

Am I supposed to be happy that gays get the right to marry and I don't even have the right to carry a gun in my state ?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Am I supposed to be happy that gays get the right to marry and I don't even have the right to carry a gun in my state ?

LOL!!

So much for him reading the posts about supporting all rights.

 

[YoungGunz]

The humans have been on this earth for about 8,000 years and there has NEVER been same sex marriages until about 30 years ago.

Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity in the context of the history of humans on earth.

Gun rights advocates should be jealous of gay marriage. There is a CLEAR and EXPLICIT right to keep and bear arms in America. There is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage in America.

There have been same sex unions all through history (including marriage). One example is during the Zhou Dynasty in China.

As far as there being a clear and explicit right to bear arms, you are absolutely correct. Anybody that claims otherwise isn't even worth the time it takes to argue your point. And while there is no explicit ammendment regarding marriage in the Constitution, I feel strongly that the 9th Amendment should be taken into account on this issue.

There are differences of opinion and this is definitely a hot topic, but the claim that it deminishes the moral structure of a family is ludicrous. The only difference between same sex marriage and mixed sex marriage is the genetalia of the people involved. There is absolutely no grounds to make a claim that a gay couple cannot provide the same loving home and moral upbringing that a straight could. There is also no reason to believe that a gay couple could not provide the same abusive and morally corrupt version that a straight couple could. People are people. The only difference here is sexual orientation.

 

[Mattimusmaximus]

There have been same sex unions all through history (including marriage). One example is during the Zhou Dynasty in China.

As far as there being a clear and explicit right to bear arms, you are absolutely correct. Anybody that claims otherwise isn't even worth the time it takes to argue your point. And while there is no explicit ammendment regarding marriage in the Constitution, I feel strongly that the 9th Amendment should be taken into account on this issue.

There are differences of opinion and this is definitely a hot topic, but the claim that it deminishes the moral structure of a family is ludicrous. The only difference between same sex marriage and mixed sex marriage is the genetalia of the people involved. There is absolutely no grounds to make a claim that a gay couple cannot provide the same loving home and moral upbringing that a straight could. There is also no reason to believe that a gay couple could not provide the same abusive and morally corrupt version that a straight couple could. People are people. The only difference here is sexual orientation.

+2


-Matt of Hillsboro OR-

 

[Citizen]

SNIP There is absolutely no grounds to make a claim that a gay couple cannot provide the same loving home and moral upbringing that a straight could. There is also no reason to believe that a gay couple could not provide the same abusive and morally corrupt version that a straight couple could. People are people. The only difference here is sexual orientation.

Or, more to the point, government has no business interfering. Talking about family in the context of whether government should interfere just diminishes the paramount issue of government purporting it somehow has authority to interfer in the rights of people.

However--and this is a big however--I am in no way saying married gays, or anybody else, have a right to tax breaks, government coerced insurance benefits, etc., etc., etc. If they want to marry, fine; that's their right. But, government has no authority to coerce the privileges I mentioned for them, nor for anybody else.

 

[MamabearCali]

okay you can marry. now please stop whining and let me have my gun rights (which is an actual constitutional right)

No they won't be happy until we are all forced to kiss their ring and worship their chosen deity of the state. They will not be happy until every church is forced by point of gun to preach their gospel of debauchery and marry lesbians at the altar.

They are the ones who are the fools however. The leftist they have allied themselves with are also allied with radical Muslim groups. That is not playing with fire, that is lighting a fire in your house and waiting for it to reach the curtains while singing campfire songs.

If it was just about govt benefits I would not care very much. They are after much much more than that.

 

[Citizen]

No they won't be happy until we are all forced to kiss their ring and worship their chosen deity of the state. They will not be happy until every church is forced by point of gun to preach their gospel of debauchery and marry lesbians at the altar.

They are the ones who are the fools however. The leftist they have allied themselves with are also allied with radical Muslim groups. That is not playing with fire, that is lighting a fire in your house and waiting for it to reach the curtains while singing campfire songs.

If it was just about govt benefits I would not care very much. They are after much much more than that.

The underlying problem is government without consent. In one sense, I would ask, "what do people expect?" The current result is entirely predictable. Its a too-obvious outgrowth of agreeing that government has the authority to rule people without their individual consent.

The rough sequence: a group of people pretend that if they attain a majority, they magically aquire the legitimate authority to rule others who are their equals without the consent of those equals.

Then, across time, as the fight for majority status and political power sways back and forth, government gets to the point that it gives out privileges in order to buy votes.

Finally, some special-interest group comes along claiming it deserves privileges already illegitimately conferred by government on others. The game being to get enough agreement culturally to sway things in their favor, whether legislatively or judicially, because they know that same government can coerce everybody merely by conferring a privilege on the special interest group.

If government lost the power to coerce everybody, meaning if it could only govern by genuine individual consent of those governed, the whole mess would collapse. Gays couldn't force their views on others. Anti-gunners couldn't disarm people. Corporations couldn't get special immunities. And, so on, and so on.

As long as people agree that government can legitimately coerce everybody, including those who do not consent to be governed by it, simply because the government represents a majority, these sorts of problems are sure to follow. A majority cannot possibly aquire the legitimate authority to rule other equals without the express, individual consent of those in the minority simply because they achieved a majority. All you have is a larger number of people who are still equals.

Great fire analogy.

 

[joanie]

..

 

[MamabearCali]

That was a very reasonable statement. Very well thought out. So......how do we get off this merry go round? How do we get to the point where the gov't lets people alone neither dishing out judgement nor giving out favors, just leaving them alone to live their life as they see fit?

 

[Citizen]

That was a very reasonable statement. Very well thought out. So......how do we get off this merry go round? How do we get to the point where the gov't lets people alone neither dishing out judgement nor giving out favors, just leaving them alone to live their life as they see fit?

Not sure. Would the suppressives leave the rest of us alone? I doubt it. It would probably take a real fight with blood to settle the question any sort of last finality.

I'm betting we'll need a lot of people who understand that equals have no legitimate authority to rule other equals without the individual express consent of the governed individuals. Lots of people.

I haven't read his work, yet. But, shortly after I recognized this flaw in the system (sic for lie about government by consent of the governed), I came across a reference to a libertarian named Hans Herman-Hoppe who thought government-by-subscription would work. I got twenty dollars that says government-by-subscription means a person consents and voluntarily subscribes to one or more mutual protection societies, and agrees to abide by their rules and fee structures until the subscriber cancels his subscription.

I suspect the whole thing hinges on respect. One can't respect another but so much if he's willing to boss the other around and tell him how much of his earnings he has to pay based on whether one considers the government expenditures appropriate.

Under that, I suspect it really hinges on self-respect. Its kinda hard to recognize the selfness of others if one has little respect for himself. And, since self-respect seems to hinge a lot on how many harmful acts--commissions and omissions--one has against others, I suspect the whole thing depends on harmful acts against others. If I'm right, it will be hard to change until Man gets a widespread, workable way of getting his sins off his chest. At least enough that he can respect himself again. Or, enough people can respect themselves. Consider the number of people who think man must have government to prevent them acting harmfully--we hear that a lot. Also, consider the classic anti-gunner who "projects" his own tendency to violence on others. These are all facets of the same issue.

In the meantime, those who agree about government only by consent among equals can trumpet the information.

 

[arentol]

I don't know about all homosexuals, but this heterosexual is happy the Court realized you cannot treat people differently simply because their pursuit of happiness isn't yours. #SupporterofCivilRightsforEveryone

With the caveat that if someone else's pursuit of happiness causes undo harm to others then yes, you can sure as hell treat them differently.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ca Patriot]

I read through the ruling today and from what I read the court most certainly did not rule that same sex marriage is a constitutional right.

How about the irony of the "standing" issue though.

California officials sworn to protect and uphold the laws of the state refused to argue for Prop 8 in court, forcing petitioners to argue for it. The court rules petitioners have no standing.

However, Obama administration officials, who are sworn to protect and uphold DOMA, choose NOT to defend it and the court rules in their favor.

I swear liberals make up constitutional law to simply fit their policy goals.

Keep in mind I have always advocated for government to end prohibitions on same sex marriage, but this ruling is just horrible constitutional law.

How can a trial court in California rule Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violates the states constitution ? Its impossible.

How could the trial court rule Prop 8 violated US constitutional law when there is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage and this ruling didn't even grant that.

California government officials are simply ignoring the law that voters lawfully and constitutionally passed.

Can I ignore the illegal California gun laws that the government passed ?

 

[minarchist]

The humans have been on this earth for about 8,000 years

On second thought, I think that the following is more appropriate:

 

[tomrkba]

okay you can marry. now please stop whining and let me have my gun rights (which is an actual constitutional right)

Sorry, CA Patriot, they won't be happy until you marry one and carry a purse. Once heterosexual males have been eliminated, they'll then feel the persecution has stopped.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I think this issue is hugely misunderstood. I think that "rights" actually ends up being only a very small part of it. For one I think that this served as a power play between federal and state governments. Generally speaking I think it's bad for federal to win those. As far as the issue of two people of the same sex being able to say they're married, well, that's just semantics. We shouldn't be taking debates over semantics to the supreme court. But it's more than semantics you say, it effects 'government benefits.' Well, there's a valid issue, but asserting your "right" to check a different box on your tax return isn't the solution to that problem. I think the whole thing is convoluted.