Divisive issues


PDA






RevolvingGarbage
March 30, 2013, 09:56 AM
Until the republican party gets on board with equal marriage rights, we stand almost no chance of converting any democratic senators, let alone the majority of the country which supports it. We can say its not a related issue all we want, but the fact is that its a personal freedom issue just like RTKBA.

There are certainly thousands of people who would be on our side, but who will always vote to elect anti gun democrats because those same democrats support their right to marry who they wish, and you can hardly blame them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Divisive issues" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JohnM
March 30, 2013, 10:05 AM
its a personal freedom issue just like RTKBA.

Huh? Tell me where you find that written into the Constitution!

RevolvingGarbage
March 30, 2013, 10:11 AM
Nowhere! Is that an excuse for us to say its something the federal government should be able to decide for all of us?

Seriously, put your personal feeling on what someone should and shouldn't do with their lives aside and ask yourself, can you really ask your fellow countryman to push for your liberty when you refuse to acknowledge theirs?

I'm probably going to get my posts deleted because this is "off topic". The fact is somebody on our side needs to get ON this topic, because its costing us votes. A LOT of votes.

Fremmer
March 30, 2013, 10:25 AM
Yes your posts should be deleted. Clinton, a democrat, signed that bill into law, and it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. So stop trying to blame republicans for it.

kwguy
March 30, 2013, 10:29 AM
Until the republican party gets on board with equal marriage rights, we stand almost no chance of converting any democratic senators

I'm very skeptical that if a Republican were to support some anti-gun Democrat's agenda for equal marriage rights, that it would change that Democrat's view on gun issues. At best, some backroom 'quid pro quo' deal may happen. This isn't some playground event where trading baseball cards in a fair manner is what everybody wants. I'm leaving the marriage issue out of it, because it's really not relevant.

There are certainly thousands of people who would be on our side,

Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, the second amendment is there for everyone, even gay people. The second amendment, like the first, and the others, should not be used as bargaining chips. Those amendments should be upheld. That's it. If some politician feels stongly enough about it, then get the thing changed in the appropriate way, not by writing contrary legislation and having it passed because of some back room deal.

RevolvingGarbage
March 30, 2013, 10:37 AM
Yes your posts should be deleted. Clinton, a democrat, signed that bill into law, and it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. So stop trying to blame republicans for it.

Again, you can say it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, and you are right, its a seperate issue.

It's a seperate issue that (at least) half of the people in this country will hinge their vote on.

Even worse when we spout on and on about liberty and individual rights and then tell someone that the personal freedom they want is wrong, we seem like massive hypocrites.

I can see that its useless to try and bring this subject up here. Sorry for the diversion.

kwguy
March 30, 2013, 10:46 AM
Even worse when we spout on and on about liberty and individual rights and then tell someone that the personal freedom they want is wrong, we seem like massive hypocrites.

I'm not really sure who you're talking about. I don't anyone on this forum, or any Republican in general (since this is apparently a party issue) would deny any gay person their 2nd amendment rights.

Fremmer
March 30, 2013, 10:52 AM
Half the people won't "hinge" their vote concerning gun control because of doma or any of the rest of that mess. And it is a mess, and has nothing to do with whether Obama, Biden, Bloomberg should violate our right to keep and bear arms. They want to ban thousands of guns. They want to have a national registry. And they are going to want that no matter how anyone votes on gay marriage.

RevolvingGarbage
March 30, 2013, 11:03 AM
I agree that the Republicans should actually have a coherent 'personal freedom' platform, but your solution replaces one mandate from Washington with anThe answer is either make marriage a state issue (messy but closer to ideal) or get the government out of the marriage business (ideal, but both sides would howl). Making it a states issue would also set precedent for making things like the NFA a state issue and rolling back the wide overreach of the Commerce Clause that lets the Federal government micromanage local issues whenever it feels like it.

This is the line of thinking that the republican party needs to adopt on the issue.

gc70
March 30, 2013, 11:08 AM
I agree that the Republicans should actually have a coherent 'personal freedom' platform, but your solution replaces one mandate from Washington with another.

Neither party's platform uniformly advocates personal freedoms. People who are not gun owners may not care about the 2nd Amendment, but a lot more of those people do care generally about personal freedoms. It would very advantageous to gun owners if, in the eyes of the public, our 2A rights were seen as another manifestation of personal rights and liberties to be jealousy guarded by (most) everyone.

Fremmer
March 30, 2013, 11:08 AM
And it won't change the fact that democrats voted for doma. And that a democrat president named Clinton signed it into law. Or that if doma is ruled unconstitutional, or repealed, that politicians will still want to pass unconstitutional gun control.

Rich democrats are threatening to withhold money without more gun control? So some of the democrats have to choose between alienating constituents who oppose the new gun control and obeying rich donors? Ask Clinton how the last gun control votes cost his party control of the house. Maybe some of these politicians should consider how their constituents feel and worry less about wealthy donors. If they want to keep their jobs, that is.

junyo
March 30, 2013, 05:20 PM
Another PS - about personal freedom. Neither party truly stands for that. One wants to control your holster, the other wants to control your crotch.

Who needs either?Remind me again how many Libertarian presidential candidates have been elected? How many are in Congress? How many Greens? Socialist (clearly labeled)?

Our system incentivizes a small number of parties and those parties coalesce towards the statist mean that the electorate, for the most part, wants. That's the practical reality of the situation. Therefore both parties are execrable to anyone who cares about freedom more than safety. But one of those execrable sides at least gives me a fighting chance of retaining the personal bit of freedom that preserves the others. Therefore I need them to win more frequently than the other execrable bunch.

And on the question of marriage - if I can drift off topic for a bit - I'm not sure how the people explaining how the rule of 'marriage=1 man/1 woman' is completely arbitrary, jib that with the idea that the rule of 'marriage=any 2 people' isn't. Conservatives are drawing a completely artificial line, but if pressed will admit that the line is arbitrary for a reason. Progressives are hypocritically just moving the arbitrary line - in the name of fairness - yet are completely prepared to screw over any other family arrangement that doesn't constitute a viable voting block. Personal freedom would mean that it's not the government's business to give you special tax and legal treatment based on who you're sleeping with. It's social engineering, plain and simple. It makes the same sense as having a different 4473 for people that drive fuel efficient cars.

Green Lantern
March 31, 2013, 01:15 PM
IMO, I wonder if the Republicans might get more traction with the more Libertarian idea of getting the .gov out of anything related to marriage altogether? "Separation of Church and State," AND "Limiting Big Government Power," looks like there could be support on both sides of the aisle on it. And Obama is absolutely determined to get more tax revenue, this in theory would accomplish that by eliminating certain tax deductions?

There are certainly thousands of people who would be on our side, but who will always vote to elect anti gun democrats because those same democrats support their right to marry who they wish, and you can hardly blame them.

This reminds me of two homosexual acquaintances of mine.

One of them really likes and supports Obama.
One of them does not - she sees Obama's support of gay marriage as insincere and "pandering."

From a gun owners perspective, look at Mitt Romney for a moment. He was quite an anti-gun governor, no? Yet he also fell all over himself to "pander" to us in 2012. But "pandering" or not....when it came to supporting the 2A, there was only one logical choice. Mitt may have not been an overly sincere ally, but when the alternative is an avowed (if poorly closeted) ENEMY...

Texan Scott
March 31, 2013, 08:52 PM
:scrutiny: :rolleyes: :banghead: IBTL, etc.

mljdeckard
March 31, 2013, 09:07 PM
Yeah. Clinton signed it. Obama said he agreed with it.

I agree with the OP in a round-about way. But this is off-topic.

Torian
March 31, 2013, 09:42 PM
Off topic, but I see where you are coming from. I might be willing to support this same-sex marriage thing, but not at the cost of it being incorporated into educational materials in our school system.

I really don't care what other people want to do to be happy, but if you start trying to indoctrinate my kids with your agenda, we will have a problem. Planned parenthood is already all over elementary school kids as it is. Leave talking about the birds and the bees with parents.

I'm fine with keeping the government out of the bedroom AND the classroom. Let's stick to Constitutional rights...gay marriage isn't one of them.

beatledog7
March 31, 2013, 10:15 PM
Marriage, between whomever and whomever, isn't a constitutional right. It's a 50-states matter.

Lost Sheep
March 31, 2013, 10:27 PM
(edited for focus) Let's stick to Constitutional rights...gay marriage isn't one of them.
Neither is heterosexual marriage.

But the original post (in my view) is less about D.O.M.A (Defense of Marriage Act) but about getting representatives elected who are not anti-gun.

That it (the O.P.) was worded as "converting any democratic senators" rather then "replacing or converting senators" is a mis-step.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.:what:

To the O.P.: I agree the question has to be asked. I am not sure I concur with the answer you seem to favor. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

When our elected representatives choose to take our election of them as a mandate to impose THEIR views rather than to represent OUR views, we cease to be a Republic but an Oligarchy (a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes).

If what we have is an Oligarchy, we need to elect a better class of oligarchs to rule us.

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep
March 31, 2013, 10:33 PM
Marriage, between whomever and whomever, isn't a constitutional right. It's a 50-states matter.
I beg to differ. And so, apparently does SCOTUS, as the Supreme Court of the U.S. heard arguments last week on the matter.

Of course, Justice Kennedy (I think I remember the news reports correctly) did express the thought that maybe they should not have agreed to hear the two cases just yet. If SCOTUS does de-certify the cases, I may have to change my disagreement and find you correct.

Lost Sheep

ilbob
March 31, 2013, 10:44 PM
I am wondering where in the constitution it says that the federal government has the power to decide who can marry who.

I am pretty sure the founding fathers never expected that it would ever be necessary to define marriage at all.

This is almost entirely about certain privileges such as government subsidized health care and other issues that should not be in the purview of any government in the first place. It should be a matter of private contract. Government should not be in the business of subsidizing some things to some people at all.

RPRNY
March 31, 2013, 11:09 PM
Marriage, as regulated by Govt as opposed to as performed by a Church, is a form of contract. If a State govt sets the terms of contract, regulates the various and sundry benefits accruing therefrom, and regulates the process and terms for arbitration of breech or dissolution, then under the 14th amendment, no State shall make any laws that do not provide equal protection to all citizens and resident aliens. The State regulates marriage between couples that are unable to have children and does not require childbirth as a condition of the agreement. The State does not prohibit childbirth outside the agreement and in some jurisdictions determines couples to have entered into an agreement even if they have not sought State sanction (common law marriage). It is impossible for me to read the 14th Amendment without understanding that if the State regulates marriage, then it must do so for any two parties wishing to enter into it. Unfortunately, I also find it hard to understand how polygamy can be prohibited provided equity between parties to the agreement could be established.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How we as Second Amendment advocates can find that any harder to understand than "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I do not understand.

I don't have to like or approve of gay marriage. Others do not have to like or approve of private ownership of AR-15s with 30 round magazines. But until the 14th and/or Second Amendments are themselves legally altered or nullified, both are rights assured by the Constitution.

PabloJ
April 4, 2013, 05:21 PM
Until the republican party gets on board with equal marriage rights, we stand almost no chance of converting any democratic senators, let alone the majority of the country which supports it. We can say its not a related issue all we want, but the fact is that its a personal freedom issue just like RTKBA.

There are certainly thousands of people who would be on our side, but who will always vote to elect anti gun democrats because those same democrats support their right to marry who they wish, and you can hardly blame them.
To survive and prosper the Republican party needs to modernize and support issues majority of Americans care about. Each election cycle there are fewer and fewer wealthy old folks casting ballots for them and young Americans do not give a damn about the extreme right BS unlta-conservative agenda.

Lost Sheep
April 5, 2013, 03:25 AM
Marriage, as regulated by Govt as opposed to as performed by a Church, is a form of contract. If a State govt sets the terms of contract, regulates the various and sundry benefits accruing therefrom, and regulates the process and terms for arbitration of breech or dissolution, then under the 14th amendment, no State shall make any laws that do not provide equal protection to all citizens and resident aliens. The State regulates marriage between couples that are unable to have children and does not require childbirth as a condition of the agreement. The State does not prohibit childbirth outside the agreement and in some jurisdictions determines couples to have entered into an agreement even if they have not sought State sanction (common law marriage). It is impossible for me to read the 14th Amendment without understanding that if the State regulates marriage, then it must do so for any two parties wishing to enter into it. Unfortunately, I also find it hard to understand how polygamy can be prohibited provided equity between parties to the agreement could be established.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How we as Second Amendment advocates can find that any harder to understand than "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I do not understand.

I don't have to like or approve of gay marriage. Others do not have to like or approve of private ownership of AR-15s with 30 round magazines. But until the 14th and/or Second Amendments are themselves legally altered or nullified, both are rights assured by the Constitution.
The two cases before SCOTUS are less about marriage than about how the Federal government will apply the benefits allowed for married people. Joint tax returns, survivor benefits, inheritance processes, spousal benefits, visitation and parenting rights, etc.

You seem to be one of the few voices that truly apprehend the core of the issues involved in these issues.

To me, the REAL point is, "Who do you give the authority to make decisions on these matters?" I have trouble trusting any organization any more who says, "Just trust us. We got this and will not screw you over."

The competent malefactor or incompetent benefactor, I don't trust either.

Lost Sheep

kwguy
April 5, 2013, 03:31 AM
I don't have to like or approve of gay marriage. Others do not have to like or approve of private ownership of AR-15s with 30 round magazines. But until the 14th and/or Second Amendments are themselves legally altered or nullified, both are rights assured by the Constitution.

Pretty much.

cfullgraf
April 5, 2013, 08:46 AM
In my opinion, the Republicans are more likely to support the Second Amendment and not implement more gun control.

In part, the religious right extremists that think they are the Republican Party base are alienating the rest of the Republicans, the very people the Republican Party needs to succeed.

alsaqr
April 5, 2013, 09:33 AM
IMO: Marriage, "gay" or otherwise, is an issue that should have never been addressed in federal law. It's a states rights issue.

i voted Republican for 50 years. With the exception of our fine sheriff, last election i voted against all the incumbents except POTUS. In OK one has a choice of two presidential candidates on the ballot; no write-ins allowed. i left that one blank.

In 1980 Lee Atwater decided that fiscal conservatism was no longer in vogue. He came up with a laundry list of feel good stuff and pawned it off as "conservatism". According to Atwater, we needed Constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage, flag burning and a host of other stuff. The so called "American Values Agenda" paid big dividends until the election of 2006 when the magic ran out.

If you enjoyed reading about "Divisive issues" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!