It works better there…
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today regarding same sex marriage. Two items are at issue here. The first is whether the Court will require all states to allow same sex marriage and the second is whether states that do not have SSM will be required to honor SSM from states that do allow it. If the first one passes the second is basically moot. If the second one passes then it invalidates the first because people can travel to get married and then return to the state that does not allow it.
It appears to be an all or nothing issue.
I read some of the arguments and do not agree with a lot of the pro argument side. There is no Constitutional right to marry. This applies to any kind of marriage. No one has the right to marry period. People have to apply for a license and the state can deny that license for any number of reasons.
The reality is that marriage is something that has been defined as the union between a man and a woman for a very long time. The US even made polygamy illegal thus strengthening the issue of one man and one woman.
The other reality is that marriage has always been an issue that was decided by the individual states. Different states have different rules for who can and cannot get married. You see, there is no right because you need permission.
It is also true that marriage has been seen as a religious institution for a long time. The government got involved for a number of reasons but the basic concept has its foundation in religion.
A state has the right to define marriage so some states have SSM and others do not. It is important to note that the large number of states that have it is no indication that most favor it as many were forced to recognize it even though their citizens voted against it. Activist courts forced them to accept it.
I have read many posts about the issue. People are claiming that this is a basic right and government should not be allowed to restrict it. They claim that people should not be allowed to vote on these rights and they are being discriminated against. They further claim that most of society agrees with it so it should be made the law of the land.
I have already shown that it is not a constitutionally protected item and that states have the right to regulate it (not the federal government). But let us ignore that for a moment and assume these people are correct.
Why not use this same logic for firearms ownership and carry where it would more appropriately apply? The Second Amendment is absolutely in the Constitution and it protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms. It further states that right shall not be infringed.
But liberals, the very same group that is saying SSM is a right and that it should apply to all states equally especially since most states already allow it (a fact that is skewed by court action) will say that people should not own or carry firearms and that states can decide what they want to do. These are the very same people who will work hard to have this protected right banned.
[note]During arguments one of the justices asked about clergy being forced to perform these marriages if they are made legal. He was assured this would not happen as there is a First Amendment right to protect them. They have ignored the Second so what makes anyone think they will obey the First? Once it is legal Obama and his DOJ will force clergy to perform them under threat of jail. Look at how florists, bakers and photographers who have religious objections are treated.[/note]
Most states allow either open or concealed carry (or both) and they do so without the court forcing them to. People in some states are discriminated against because they can’t do the same thing with regard to firearms as those in a majority of the states. A majority of the population is in favor of firearms ownership and shall issue carry permits. As an aside, I prefer must issue with no permit required. If you pass the check to get the gun you can carry it any way you want.
If the Supreme Court decides that marriage is a right and that the federal government can define it and thus allows SSM to be the law of the land in all states then it only follows that the same should hold true with regard to firearms.
The Court should immediately invalidate all state gun laws and issue an order that all states will be must issue.
The Second Amendment, unlike any kind of marriage, is a right protected by the Constitution.
Funny how liberals always call things they want rights and then say everyone has to give in and honor them while they continue to ignore the G-d given right to keep and bear arms.
I think the SCOTUS will allow SSM. They clearly have no sense of Constitutional rule as evidenced by their decision on Obamacare. Our society is on the decline and will not be around much longer. SSM is one more thing needed to ensure the demise of society.
I do wonder though why states would even obey the ruling. Just tell the feds you won’t do it. What will they do? Tell the SCOTUS you don’t agree and do your own thing.
Obama has been doing that so it is not like he could object.
He certainly has not suffered any consequences of his refusal to obey…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
