The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

What does that mean, and where is that in the Constitution?

You do understand what dangerous ground you're treading on, don't you? Let's say the Supreme Court decided the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments were nullified by the government . It's a hypothetical of course, but to say the Supreme Court has the power to do so is ridiculous.

 

You edited your post so I'll respond to your example. I think it's a great example by the way, because they could rule the opposite right? The government should absolutely have NO involvement in who gets married. There should be no favoritism or laws that respect married people over single people.

 

Why are you limiting it to two? Your argument should've been made that any consenting adult marrying any consenting adult or group of consenting adults. But you have a bias where you only care about the homosexual agenda and you left out a large chunk of the population making your argument. Thus your argument is invalid.

 

I see you haven't grasped the fact that nobody is your statist bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

P.S

Just because the government is made up of "the people", doesn't mean they don't have the potential of robbing people of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There are thousands of examples of just that happening.

 

Liberal progressives have always disliked the idea of poor minorities having guns. It's why they pushed so hard to outlaw so-called "Saturday Night Specials." Cheap handguns that poor people could obtain to defend themselves and scare the pants off lily-white leftists.

 

What?!

This is not some exact science. Even so, a large majority of Americans can indeed influence and shape the laws of this nation.

I see a process of creating and adjusting laws as necessary; you see something sinister. No matter what I say to you, I suspect you will continue to see things as you will.

So be it.

 

I know, but until congress passes an amendment one way or another, government is involved. The SC can limit their involvement, however, if they ruled that marriage is a constitutional right, which would disallow the government from discrimination against gays, or anyone else, without an amendment outright banning gay marriage.

 

It's a good question. Neither side seems to want to apply that logic to what substances one chooses to ingest and by whatever method they choose to ingest it. Either the individual owns himself, and may choose without restriction the means of self defense, with whom he associates for business, friendship or romance, and what he does to his own body and mind, or he is owned by someone else which may be the state.

 

Well I never said marriage should be limited to two people, in fact, I have many posts calling for polygamy, and even incest being legal between consenting adults. However, the SC has not made a ruling to allow polygamy, and it's not specifically spelled out in the constitution, so standing laws are valid, and most states ban them.

I would like to see an amendment barring the government from interfering in marriage between consenting adults in any way, and limiting their authority to setting the age of consent and tax rates.

 

I think it's because most people don't apply a consistent standard. They pick and choose among what they consider to be legitimate reasons to control their fellow man based upon the particular ends they think are important. Basically, most people feel that the ends justify the means. They just have different ends. Some want to control who may marry whom. Some want to control who may own what weapons. Each is willing to violate the rights of others in order to achieve his ends.

 

Getting married and having children has caused quite a number of future adults to have health issues or be violent. Should we regulate who can be a parent and if they're not accepted force an abortion or adoption?

 

I've been pointing out how the left's position on gun control flies completely in the face of the rest of their usually pretty good social policy. They seem to just disregard all the points they made when it comes to gay marriage, torture, etc - when gun control is up for debate. It's like they become completely different people.

Personally I think that minority freedoms (rights imply obligations) shouldn't be transgressed no matter the Democratic consensus. I also think that the smallest minority is the individual. Thus, the liberties of individuals shouldn't be transgressed. Period.

Otherwise you're stuck with the problem of your position being arbitrary. At which size does a group stop being a minority? How come some minority liberties (gay marriage, gun freedom) aren't to be transgressed, but others (freedom to smoke cannabis, freedom of immigration) are?

On this view you have no right to gay marriage, just as you have no right to traditional marriage - these phrases imply obligations on the part of other individuals to have your stolen tax dollars go towards providing benefits to one favored group via the inequal tax code and other legal avenues. However, you have the liberty to get into a relationship of any sort and call it whatever you want. You can have your neighbor marry you to a garden gnome for all I care; it's your choice as an individual. The state should have no part in it.


Idk, so often there's the left view which wants the state to endorse gay marriage, and the right which wants the state to only endorse traditional marriage. I feel there is a much more reasonable alternative.

 

Wrong, shall not be infringed does not express that sentiment at all.

 

Except there is no "left's position" it is not monolithic. The current debate that is being held up by the NRA is background checks, which up to 90% of the country feels is what they want and that the Supreme Court has ruled is allowed. In fact the most conservative jurist in my lifetime has said that restrictions on guns does not violate the second as long as those restrictions are not a ban on all guns.

But we have to ask how are you defining liberties.

Here is the thing. Your freedoms end when they interfere with mine. Arguments can be made for public safety and health on issues like cannabis or smoking bans. Arguments can be made for the good of the country to slow down immigration.

I am not sure how you see tax dollars as stolen.

This argument falls apart here. Marriage, for good or bad, has legal implications. It is as much a religious joining as a contractual one and thus government involvement. To link gay marriage to marrying a garden gnome means you miss the point of why this is an important debate. And guess what you don't have the liberty to call it marriage in some states that have made that illegal.

Except currently there is a simple freedom based answer. Let all people marry the person that they want want as long as there is consent and no undue influence (thus close family members can't marry due to the influence that can easily be implied). If my friend John wants to marry Steve the government not only shouldn't stand in the way but recognize it as much as if John wants to marry Tina. The fact that the government in many states and at the Federal level doesn't do that is simply anti-liberty.

 

So can knives and clubs.

 

Find gay marriage in the Constitution, and I will never speak against it.

 

There is no more evidence that homosexuals are born that than there is that sociopaths are born that way. If we are going to permit homosexuals to marry based upon the flimsy pretext that they are born that way, do we then have to permit sociopaths to murder steal and cheat because they are born that way? One is born Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, or Australian Aborigine. I cannot no matter how hard I try refrain from being of Negroid decent Mongoloid decent, or Australian Aborignal decent. One can decode to escew various types of behavior. We ahve hundreds of laws designed to discourage all sorts of behavior. Hell our entire tax code isn't designed to generate revenue for the government but in the main to discourage and encourage certain behaviors.

 

Good points. I use it to defend both.

 

Nobody is born a given religion either, yet we defend that the same as discrimination against race.

A trait doesn't have to be immutable to be defensible by civil rights.

Just like there is a right to vote, there is a right to gun ownership.

 

I'm a pragmatist, and I only have to look at thousands of years of recorded history and human nature to back my case. You seem to be in flat denial that govermnent made up of "the people", have from time to time, denied people their rights, along with over stepping the limits put on them by our constitution. Are you really this short sighted?

You also seem to be ignorant to the fact that the 2nd amendment is a safeguard for the people to keep tyranny in check. You also seem more than willing to sacrifice that safeguard, for some hollow illusion of safety and the common good, when in fact you are advocating the complete antithetical position
of our safety and common good.

You, nor any two bit legislator have the right to put a free citizenry on uneven terms with our government. It's as simple as that.

 

We don't need all this firepower nor as many idiotic jerks packing heat.

Change the damned laws.

 

No but they are born with the right to own a gun.

 

You need to mind your business, and leave people alone. It's as simple as that.

 

Exactly

Say again, what was your time in service, and what was your rank?

So either you believe that a majority should be able to oppress a minority, or you're just not understanding the arguments being made. It's likely the second one.

You need to be careful with that 90% figure. First off, it wasn't 90%, that's a rounded figure. Second, it's how many people support background checks. We already have them - the difference is those who don't support ANY background checks at all. Polls that look closer find that the voters in support of the recent gun control measures were a minority. A plurality supports guns checks as they are.

 

I didn't mean to imply the left has one position, I was referring to the broad consensus among American leftists.

I couldn't care less what your 'argument from authority' conservative jurist says, the Federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. Show me in AIS8 or elsewhere where this power is enumerated.

You have the liberty to do anything so long as you don't transgress the person/property of another or break contracts/agreements with another.

Exactly! See above.

You have no right to rule over me or others in areas they haven't consented to. I couldn't care less if everyone dropped dead after smoking weed, if they want to take that risk then so be it.

Public land is a bit different, because in a free world public land wouldn't exist. In the interim I think it's reasonable to allow taypayers a say in what happens on public land (because it's better to allow the robbed to at least choose where the robbed money goes), but ultimately all land would be privately owned, or owned by voluntary collections of individuals. I'm not against collective action, I'm against coerced collective action.

200 years ago a man came to the untamed land where my property now lies and began to work it. He created a farm. By this process you gain ownership of the land (homesteading principle). He then passed this farm down though a few generations, then they sold it. Two people came together freely and traded land for assets. Fast forward 150 years and I bought it from another in the chain.

Government comes in after the fact and claims sovereignty over our land and property. The difference between theft and taxation is twofold:

- Thieves generally don't allow the victim to delegate the money
- Government has a self-provided monopoly on the use of legitimate force.

To me the expense I get on my tax bill is no different than the expense I'd incur if a gang tried to extort protection money.

1. Marriage need not have legal implications. You agree to the terms of the marriage contract, done. Just like any other contract. Also just like any other contract, it doesn't require the government to enforce: two individuals come together and consent. I'm not saying marrying a garden gnome is the same as gay marriage, I'm saying it may as well be. If both sides agree then so be it. Of course, the gnome couldn't consent, but you're welcome to go around claiming your gnome signed a marriage contract all you like.

2. It being a religious joining is irrelevant.

3. The Federal government has no authority under the constitution to interfere in internal state matters other than those delegated in AIS8. Providing for marriage is not one of these powers, therefore it should be left to the states or the people.

There's not any reason for the government to necessarily endorse the marriage, but whatever. The constitution provides for state authority in all areas not delegated to the Federal government. I couldn't care less about the states not endorsing one type of marriage except insofar as the tax benefits are concerned. In that case it makes no sense for a government less representative of the people (the Federal government) to interfere with bodies closer to those people (the states). Especially not against its constitution.