Would you concede gay marriage to eliminate states rights to regulate firearms?


August 15, 2006, 04:42 AM
I think since everything in politics so divided that we will never again see by-partisan voting, how about we start making deals with each other.

Since the Dems want gay marriage so bad, I will concede gays "right" to get married if they concede that states/counties/cities should not be allowed to regulated firearms any further than what the national regulations are....and that includes open carry and CCW.

And so neither side tries to pull a fast one on the other, we can put these two complete opposite issues on the same piece of legislation like they do everything else. :)

And if they really want to get down to business, I will even concede abortion for the right to purchase modern select-fire firearms, and it gets made a little easier. :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you concede gay marriage to eliminate states rights to regulate firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
August 15, 2006, 04:54 AM
yes, i would.

but i don't really care if gays want to get married. i'm a big fan of that freedom thing.

August 15, 2006, 04:56 AM
If you guys allow gay marriage then our "leader" will follow suit- not sure if he will follow on the gun thing tho

August 15, 2006, 04:59 AM
What do you mean?

The Guy
August 15, 2006, 05:04 AM
Gays and marriage, sure!

Abortion, umm....O.K., why not!

See folks, this is how great comprimises are made. Of course it is kinda like dealing with the devil, but hey, what is an eternity in hell for an automatic firearm.

I guess that really I feel that we the people already have the rights to own both with no concessions on our side. Gay marriage (I'd prefer union or other such wording, but hey) doesn't bother me in the least, but abortion I kinda make a don't ask don't tell sort of deal, and I wonder what the eternal conciquinces would be for my soul if I condoned such. Please, no flame jobs from either side here, deep down I think it is wrong, but I sure as heck am not going to tell any woman what she can or cannot do to her body. Always ended up being a losing propisition.:eek:

The more I think of this the more I feel the need to say no. We already have the right DAMN IT! It has been our right for over 200 years! Why do we have to make concessions to get OUR RIGHTS BACK!:cuss:

(taking a chill pill) I just don't understand how gun controll is for the children, but abortion is O.K.? Why does the ALCU support the first all day and night but thinks the second doesn't mean what it says? The ALCU should be MARRIED to the NRA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! IMAGINE WHAT WE COULD DO UNITED!:cuss:


I need a beer, but I quit drinking, so I'm going off to clean my firearms instead.

Tom Servo
August 15, 2006, 05:10 AM
Mmmm...I don't see the equivalence.

First of all, private arms ownership is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, not something to be "bargained."

Second, any politician supporting the marriage ban loses my vote. Why? It has nothing to do with gays getting married (I'm ambivalent; I don't see the big problem). It has do do with the idea that people want to give the government license to regulate private behavior. That's a slippery slope that only gets steeper.

The gay-marriage issue is a cheap smokescreen to make politicians look like they're doing something important when there are so many unresolved problems in this country that get no real attention, and it's a waste of tax dollars and time.

August 15, 2006, 05:26 AM
our "leader" tends to derive his policies etc from the US- he overturned gay marriage laws recently here following a similar decision over your way.
He is also outspokenly "anti-gun" tho and fears Australia going down the "gun culture" path of the US.
Abortion is another word he is afraid of but fortunately he missed the boat on that one.

August 15, 2006, 06:12 AM
Compromise is what built this country initially. Now it boils down to sneaky weasel words and attaching things to bills that aren't really read before they are voted on.

I think this would be a big step in the right direction, although doing it this way would seem to be the final death blow to any remainig States' Rights.


August 15, 2006, 06:18 AM
Gays should be able to get married. I have no problem with it. If I can also get the ability to own a machinegun out of it even better.

mons meg
August 15, 2006, 07:10 AM
The gay-marriage issue is a cheap smokescreen to make politicians look like they're doing something important when there are so many unresolved problems in this country that get no real attention, and it's a waste of tax dollars and time.

Erik is dead on. See also the Congressional investigations into steroid use in baseball, the flag burning amendment, etc. etc.

August 15, 2006, 07:19 AM
Who cares if gays get married in the first place?

August 15, 2006, 07:24 AM
I agree with Erik - there is no equivalence between a right guaranteed by the Constitution and a desire by some to have a new right created.

Double Naught Spy
August 15, 2006, 07:24 AM
While I would gladly go for gay marriage for getting gun rights, I think the query is fairly pointless as the two topics aren't related except they pertain to rights. Given I am a heterosexual married guy with an open mind on such matters as relationships (for others, my wife made me say that), there is really nothing to concede.

August 15, 2006, 07:24 AM
I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I don't care what consenting adult you marry, or whether you carry.

Tom C.
August 15, 2006, 07:34 AM
Asking to make a deal, of any kind, with these groups is insane. Politicians are inherently amoral. They will sell you out in a New York Minute. Never trust any of them. Watch them closely. Hold their feet to the fire.
I can't see bargaining our rights and converting them into privileges for any reason.

August 15, 2006, 07:39 AM
I'm happy for gay couples to marry. If people don't want gay marriages that's for individual religions to decide, not the government (although of course they could allways marry at a registry office or the US equivilant).

If this secured me gun rights, well that's two birds with one stone.

August 15, 2006, 07:49 AM
I sure as heck am not going to tell any woman what she can or cannot do to her body. Always ended up being a losing propisition.

The Guy, this is not personal, I'm using your statement because I hear it all the time; 'it's the woman's body, it's her choice.' What of the unborn child? What of his or her rights? Who will speak for them? In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder, one each for the mother and unborn child. Yet, 'terminating' a pregnancy early by choice is not a murder its an 'abortion'. Use whatever whatever word you want to feel better about it and deny it, but abortion is, has been, and always will be murder. Folks let's call a spade a spade. No firearm will ever be worth me condoning murder (murder and killing being two different things, but that's another discussion).

Gay marriage? I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't agree with anti-war flag burner types either. However, I'm not about to advocate removing anyone's rights and their equal entitlement therof under the law. I may not like the lifestyle, but homosexuals should be granted the same legal rights as heterosexuals in the context of civil marriage. Marriage from a religious context is just that - religion. As a Christian I believe gay marriage is wrong; others' faiths/religions do not. I refuse to deny anyone the right to believe and worship as they please because here in America I can believe and worship as I please. On this issue I'm trying to say that religion is religion, and is not the business of the government. Marriage in a religious context is the business of that couples' religion and civil rights should have no attachment to it.

Bruce H
August 15, 2006, 07:50 AM
Gays can get married if the want. When the states became part of the union didn't the agree to abide by the constitution? There are a lot of people that need Shall not be infringed rammed down their throats.

August 15, 2006, 07:53 AM
The liklihood that an elected politician would support both gay marriage & RKBA is infinitesimal. Ron Paul could hold a convention of them all in his shower stall. Actually, he probably does every time he takes a shower.

GM & RKBA are good indicators of two very different world views. Those of you who support both, congratulations. You truly are the exceptions.

Also, such a compromise would only embolden the GM-supporting crowd to greater hieghts of lefty freakishness. If we are willing to grant bogus claims of legitimacy in exchange for rights enumerated in the COTUS, what is next? Legitimize bestiality to regain the right to political speech 60 days before an election? How 'bout legitimizing pedophilia to ensure eminent domain is used only for gov't projects benefitting the public?

Nope, such a Faustian bargain will end up...the way Faust did: dead and burning in eternity (or in history) for betraying our patrimony and dealing with the agents of chaos & evil.

August 15, 2006, 08:12 AM
I too have no problems with gay marriage.Who am I to tell adults who they may or may not choose as a partner?Does it not make more sense to not allow addicts and those with records of violent behavior to get married? I'd be much happier with a gay couple next door than a pair of alcoholics that fight constantly and neglect their kids.
In short,I want to conceed nothing on the matter:gays should have universal rights to marriage and we should have universal rights to CCW.

August 15, 2006, 08:12 AM
I'm all for personal freedoms so I wouldn't be conceding anything. Gay people can do whatever they want.

Browns Fan
August 15, 2006, 08:14 AM
+1, ugaarguy. Well said, sir!

August 15, 2006, 08:24 AM
Marriage is by historical definition a union between a man and a woman, so we can call it gay marriage all we want, but thats a made up term.

I would be in favor of the government getting totally out of the business of marriage, and make it once again a religious event. For purposes of establishing property ownership and child custody, a legal contract from the government might be necessary, but it wouldn't be for marriage per se(which would be handled by churches), it would simply be like any other partnership contract where both parties have half ownership in the property.

Of course, this would upset gays, because most churches would refuse to marry gays, and they would just be stuck with the partnership contract. I guess they could find non-Bible based churches who would carry out marriage ceremonies for them.. They really want more than simple legal equality, they want to be "married". Part of the reason they want to be "married" is for social shock value. Its just cloaked in legal equality.

That said, if we allow two guys to get married, I think we also need to allow for other non-traditional unions. If we are going to alter the defintion of marriage, and the word means only what we want it to mean, then it can really be anything. I see no reason why the government should tell a man he can't have 100 wives. I see no reason why a man can't marry his dog or sheep either.

Any way, I agree the government doesn't need to get in the way of people trying to do something stupid. I would not use firearms rights as a negotiating tool for any of this though.

The Guy
August 15, 2006, 08:32 AM
"Allow me to retort"

You are right about the abortion issue, did you not read my "it's for the kids" line pointing out yet another contradiction of the left. Remember, I ended up saying no, and while I did not make it clear, after a reread of my post, it was the abortion issue that pushed me over the edge.

The problem for me is that I really want Vermont style gun "controll" for the whole nation to enjoy, plus the avalibity of every thing the military is allowed. I just do not want to burn in hell for my current wants compelling me to make a deal with Lucifer. Who I have it on good athority is a leftist!

No offence taken, I just wanted to make my final answer more clear then the way I left it in my original post.

I still say we have the RIGHT already, but I can't get that through to the left.

August 15, 2006, 08:34 AM
A Win/Win for the Pink Pistols! Uuuhh, not that I'm a member of the Pink Pistols. Not that there's anything wrong with that....:D

August 15, 2006, 08:53 AM
We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you concede gay marriage to eliminate states rights to regulate firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!