patrick.net

In my opinion, the declaration of independence, constitution, and bill of rights are so broad that they give us all and any rights- even those that haven't been thought of yet. This was the miracle our founding fathers bestowed on us. The only restrictions on those rights are those placed on us by our elected officials.

Essentially,the whole gay marriage thing started when a gay couple went to a California city hall to get a marriage licience. When the clerk saw they were both the same sex, a supervisor was consulted and the supervisor decided that a same sex marriage was improper. In other words a bureaucrat didn't know what to do because a box didn't exist for that particular choice.

So San Francisco decided to perform the marriage because there was no law against it(yet). So now we have prop 8, and it's adjudged unconstitutionality. If, as I have opined in first paragraph, have any and all right not specifically restricted by legislative process, can someone explain to me without using personal moral or religious arguments why this particular right should be denied?

thomas.wong1986 says

Clarence 13X says

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Illegal means exactly as you state. Foreign nationals living or visting who are here illegally are “under the jurisdiction of the foreign powers”, not the US government. We have no obligation to provide health care, education or other social services.

Yet the underlying message that whites were sending to Mexicans is: We dont want you here, go back home.

thomas.wong1986 says

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

My point still stands, its ok for christians to fight for their rights but not others.

Bap33 says

lol .. Clarence …. such a silly silly lib. Racebator Extraodinare.
tat,
this may shock you, but all of America’s bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?

Is liberal code word for N****R?

Because the only thing I think you dont like about liberals are the people that make up their constituency.

elliemae says

thomas.wong1986 says

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood — blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show “19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they’re done having kids, we should shoot ‘em.
And using that reasoning, there’s nothing wrong with procreating the day you’re able. Warren Jeffs (polygamous leader in prison for marrying 14 year old girls against their will) should be let out of prison and we should let him loose at the elementary schools. Let’s make divorce illegal, extra-marital relationships would be just ducky fine as long as the woman has good lineage…
But that’s not realistic. We’re legislating behaviors and sexual orientations that don’t have anything to do with most of us. We don’t like the idea of two men having sex, but most men I know wouldn’t mind watching two women having sex.
Welcome back, Clarence. Good to see ya.

Race baiting my way to the top!

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it’s about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

sim,
I'm pretty sure you know I am not NAZI-ish, I'm just trying to share my view in a constructive way. I do like how your mind works. "Use your powers for good, Luke." lol

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says
permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.
Let’s get back on track then. BAP–what is your view on a private citizen buying nuclear bombs?

Before you came here Tat, everyday people were packing heat in Sunnyvale.
Murder rate back in the day was close to zero as it can get.

elliemae says

Using this reasoning, marriage should be limited to people who are of child-bearing age, who pledge to have tons of children (like that couple in the TV Show “19 kids & counting), and who only have sex for procreation. The day that they’re done having kids, we should shoot ‘em.

Tisk Tisk Tisk! It is not my reasoning, it is a fact shared by many cultures, else we all be fornicators.

Clarence 13X says

My point still stands, its ok for christians to fight for their rights but not others.

You made no point, but state an error.

Bap33 says

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior. I am being general on purpose, because that is the only way it can be fair. It can not, and should not matter if it’s about sex or sport or hygene .. behavior that is not healthy to society should be labled as such. Sure, the Bible called most of the unhealthy actions sin .. but, we are not talking Bible here. We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

No, because people's rights come before "society". Your morality is the morality of the Taliban, and the American Prohibitionists of 100 years ago. The "Pursuit of happiness" trumps any totalitarian/majoritarian morality.

It's really quite fascist in fact, as simcha alluded to above.

But as a left-libertarian I do balance this anything-goes desire for personal freedom with the cold hard facts of your logic, in that individuals shouldn't be allowed to ruin themselves at society's greater *monetary* expense (since that is just diverting wealth from positive uses to mitigating avoidable damage -- every numbnut going through a windshield is one less medical procedure we can afford to subsidize to someone who needs it).

This comes down to where a sacrifice of liberty is no great "undue burden" in Constitutional terms. Primary examples being seatbelt/helmet laws, bans on public prostitution, and criminalizing the meth trade.

Homosexuality isn't an "unhealthy behavior", either. It's just different. At any rate, discriminating against gays isn't going to fix the issue if it did exist, so your point is just bizarre really. Even if 50% of the population turned gay I don't see the "health" angle.

thomas.wong1986 says

Before you came here Tat, everyday people were packing heat in Sunnyvale.
Murder rate back in the day was close to zero as it can get.

Before I came where? to Patnet?

thomas.wong1986 says

elliemae says
Using this reasoning...
Tisk Tisk Tisk! It is not my reasoning, it is a fact shared by many cultures, else we all be fornicators.

Thomas, I didn't say it was your reasoning, but just because many cultures share it doesn't make it right. I gots no beef with you.

Bap33 says

Bap33 says

So, I think we all can we agree that when a society allows a particular behavior that is unhealthy for society, that doing so should not result in that unhealthy behavior being made equal to healthy behavior...We are talking about any action that if done by all members of society results in harming the society.

I think this slipped past on accident. Do you agree with any of what I say in this paragraph?

I feel like I'm in a police interrogation room, where they ask hypotheticals, "if you had been in the room when the gentleman said you had poopy pants, wouldn't you agree that you would have felt like taking an uzi and shooting him and all his family members?"

The problem is that everything is detrimental to society when unchecked. Overeating (should be ban eating?), driving while tired (should we require a full 8 hours of sleep before people drive?), working too many hours (should we require people to take time off?), working too few hours (should we require everyone work a minimum of 40 hours per week?), gun ownership (should we limit the amount of guns one can own?), etc. As Simcha said, if homosexuality were to be unchecked it's possible that the human race would die off. Then my dog would rule the world, and could herd animals to her life's content. That, and eat dead things she finds without anyone taking them away from her.

People live together without a contract every day - and I dare say that many gay people wouldn't get married if they were able to because they're not in a committed relationship. The issue is that we're not speaking about unhealthy vs. healthy - we're attempting to use a law to keep people from being who they are.

If simcha were to move next door to me, I imagine we'd hang out on the porch and drink wine while we chatted. If he had a partner, we'd do the same. And if he were to marry that partner, nothing would change for me - but it would for them. Their union would afford them a few more legal rights that I can have if I choose to marry.

elliemae says

The issue is that we’re not speaking about unhealthy vs. healthy - we’re attempting to use a law to keep people from being who they are.

Well, not me. I was talking about the rights of society vs the rights of the individual because that was the basis for placing limits on weapon rights - please see above for about 9 bizzillion posts from the left-leaning side that says expressly society has a right to limit liberties of the individual that are "potentialy" unsafe for society -- everyone having nuke bombs for example. So, it is my point that if the limits of individual liberty is best for society at any time, then it is reasonable to allow society to protect itself all the time, especially if society voices it's desire in a vote. It has been shared that the left-side of society wants protection from masses of armed crazy people due to the "potential" of what could happen (but, we both know no vote by society supports this view). Contrast this with the fact that Prop 8 shows society wants protection from the "potential" of having behavior it tollerates in a private consenting adult setting, to not be viewed as harmful to society. The individual liberty is checked to the benifit of society in both instances - against potential harm to society if unchecked. Add to this the voting issue involved; the voted voice of society vs activist judges and lawmakers bending to the mighty dollar, and maybe my point will be more acceptable?

elliemae says

If simcha were to move next door to me, I imagine we’d hang out on the porch and drink wine while we chatted. If he had a partner, we’d do the same. And if he were to marry that partner, nothing would change for me - but it would for them. Their union would afford them a few more legal rights that I can have if I choose to marry.

I think Sim seems like a fine person. So I agree with your point. And we can agree that his private activity could possible have zero effect on any other member of society. But, private activity is not what's being brought forth - in my opinion.
I disagree with having legal rights to another's stuff without a civil/public expressed union (I guess that may be just a contract) that includes expected duties of both parties (help, welfare, housing, children, loans and bills, ext ext - not private activity things). A church union should not carry any more weight in the eyes of the law (or society) than a non-church union, in my opinion.

Are we getting closer? This has been very nice thus far. thanks to all (except Clarence - he's a real buttbreath)

Bap33 says

I was talking about the rights of society vs the rights of the individual because that was the basis for placing limits on weapon rights - please see above for about 9 bizzillion posts from the left-leaning side that says expressly society has a right to limit liberties of the individual that are “potentialy” unsafe for society — everyone having nuke bombs for example.

To have legal standing one must show harm. To legislate restrictions on liberty, one must pass the rational basis and undue burden tests of Due Process.

Gays getting married in the eyes of the law has zero effect on you (other than the benefits they will receive thereby).

So, it is my point that if the limits of individual liberty is best for society at any time, then it is reasonable to allow society to protect itself all the time, especially if society voices it’s desire in a vote.

And that's where you're going off the rails. Gun laws aren't for protecting "society", they're for protecting people in the here and now from disproportional harm, harm that tax and insurance payers -- aka "society" -- has to pay the bill for.

In the Prop 8 case, 52% of an electorate voting to take away equal rights of a 5% minority is neither "society" strongly voicing its desire nor is it anything about protecting individuals from rather unnecessary harms.

The Prop 8 proponents had their day in court to argue that their little hate addendum to the California Declaration of Rights passed rational basis and undue burden tests; they failed spectacularly.

"Society" will in fact have to pay a bit more for domestic same-sex couples acceding to the same benefits that traditional married partners get. The gains we get from more stable domestic same-sex partnerships should be worth this cost, at any rate, cost alone should not be the deciding factor in denying people equal rights.

But the gun-rights cases do have some parallel with gay-rights, the majority taking away rights of a minority for arguably Unconstitutional and/or irrational reasons. Funny how the God-Guns-Gays Republican party platform is in utter conflict with itself.

Upon further reading of the constitution I've concluded that this is the only valid interpretation:

Troy says

“Society” will in fact have to pay a bit more for domestic same-sex couples acceding to the same benefits that traditional married partners get. The gains we get from more stable domestic same-sex partnerships should be worth this cost, at any rate, cost alone should not be the deciding factor in denying people equal rights.

People have to pay for marriage licenses, changing their names on driver's licenses, etc. They also pay to get married - and I believe that the monies reaped will be much greater than those paid out. If we're talking healthcare benefits, for example, those people who don't qualify for their partner's health insurance might be racking up some huge bills at the hospital that aren't being paid. This results in higher costs for the rest of us, higher taxes for Medicaid/Indigent programs, etc. It'd be a cost neutral issue, IMHO.

Troy says

And that’s where you’re going off the rails. Gun laws aren’t for protecting “society”, they’re for protecting people in the here and now from disproportional harm, harm that tax and insurance payers — aka “society” — has to pay the bill for.

I don't get this statement, please explain. IMHO gun control is about people who've never handled a gun trying to tell me that my household is somehow less safe because I have a couple. They're trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn't change this fact. If someone is set on hurting another, they'll do it however they must. My guns are for sport, and also for protection.

I'm a liberal with guns - and there are many of us. No one I know has ever shot anyone else, nor have we ever drawn our weapons on anyone else. The only person I knew who was killed was the victim of a robbery where the guy had an unlicensed gun, and no gun control law will change that.

elliemae says

IMHO gun control is about people who’ve never handled a gun trying to tell me that my household is somehow less safe because I have a couple. They’re trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn’t change this fact. If someone is set on hurting another, they’ll do it however they must. My guns are for sport, and also for protection.

I don't want to get into the actual science of public safety and gun control, since it's a big can of worms, but public policy has to balance on the averages and not on individual aptitudes.

Widespread gun ownership does have a significant bleedover effect into the public safety realm -- the Glenn Beck-powered nutjob arrested in Oakland last month is a good example of California's gun control laws working as intended. No automatic weapons for him!

I believe the only right we have to military-style weaponry is the 2nd Amendment right, and that can be limited just like the other amendments have been from time to time to balance public safety issues.

was the victim of a robbery where the guy had an unlicensed gun, and no gun control law will change that

. . . yet where did the unlicensed gun come from?

If we want gun-violence deaths in the 22nd century to look like the rest of the civilized world, we've got to start now. . .

Comparing California to Canada is interesting because the populations are nearly the same in size. There's over 400 dead kids a year from guns in California. Canada has ~150 gun homicides in total. There's a clear public health and safety argument for limiting ownership of guns.

The best gun for home defense is a shotgun and I think we all have a basic right to that, Constitution or no Constitution. Handguns bleed over into the public safety aspect because they are much easier to conceal and blandish when committing a crime, and also more easier to play with and accidentally shoot something. Hunting rifles don't have much self-defense or crime aspect, but of course they are useful for hunting, and also have some 2nd Amendment protection cuz a dude with a hunting rifle is going to cause a lot more problems for the Sandinistas when they land than a dude with a Desert Eagle.

The issues are complex and nobody has any good answers. Except Howard Dean, I liked his idea to just leave the problem to the states to experiment with:

"What I have said is that rural states -- and this includes places like Tennessee , perhaps, that have low homicide rates -- don't need the same gun laws that urban states do.

"And if urban states want to have lots of gun control, let them have it, but just don't impose the same gun laws that you have in New York City or New Jersey or California on states like Vermont, which have a very low homicide rate."

elliemae says

They’re trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn’t change this fact.

Couldn't you make this argument for any weapon though? Using this logic, we're back to allowing Aunt Susie to own a grenade launcher or a bazooka.

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

They’re trying to tell me that guns kill people - but people are the ones who kill people, and trying to regulate my guns doesn’t change this fact.

Couldn’t you make this argument for any weapon though? Using this logic, we’re back to allowing Aunt Susie to own a grenade launcher or a bazooka.

Yea - not an easy issue to disseminate, is it? I don't think that weapson such as grenade launchers & bazookas should be legal - not only would they be weapons of mass destruction, but they'd knock Aunt Susie on her ass when she used them. Sure there should be some limits, but exactly where they should be is a problem.

When I was growing up, M-80's were fun for blowing up mailboxes. We also made a few pipe bombs because we could. But we never tried to hurt anyone, we just played with 'em. Ah, the good ol' days.

Nomograph says

Your argument that “the people have spoken” is unconstitutional when it comes to individual rights.

But ... that's not what "I say" .. that is what happened with my 2nd Am rights. Individual rights were removed, and should be seen as unconstitutional. Did you skip down to the end of this thread?? lol I have tried soooooo hard to share this above. lol

elliemae says

Yea - not an easy issue to disseminate, is it? I don’t think that weapson such as grenade launchers & bazookas should be legal - not only would they be weapons of mass destruction, but they’d knock Aunt Susie on her ass when she used them.

I would love to see Aunt Susie fire a grenade launcher and then a bazooka. That would make for great television. Maybe we could start a show. Guns 'n Ammo For Little Old Ladies. The weapons that they would shoot would be immense and they would have one hell of a kickback! I think it would be one of the highest rated shows on television.

Of course you could even do some serious segments about gun ownership for the masses. The segments could feature gun safety, choosing the right weapon for the right person, and training on how to shoot. Also it could educate the public about current gun laws.

elliemae says

weapson

Where was my spell check when I needed it? :)