Sunday, June 28, 2015

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights.

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights.:
(June 27, 2015)

With the high court’s latest ruling on same-sex marriages, some contend the decision could lead to increased gun rights, specifically national CCW reciprocity, by using the same argument. Friday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those sanctioned by other states. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the landmark decision that arguably made same sex marriage a reality in the 13 remaining states that continued to ban the practice.
With all due respect for those who do not agree with this decision, I do not understand what the controversy is all about.

This is a Freedom ruling; it allows everyone to determine their own preferences, and live under the same rules for Homosexuals as are accorded to Heterosexuals.

I acknowledge that some people consider that this undermines the sanctity of marriage.  I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution, which generally acknowledges rights, rather than establishing limitations on The People (which is NOT the purpose of the Constitution!)   I've heard the expression "Sanctity of Marriage".  Is this something which must be 'protected'?  Or is it something which speaks for itself?

So, why should I care if homosexuals marry?   You don't agree with me?  First Amendment Protection .. rail away, I 'get' to say this because I CAN.  (Of course, you can be vehement in your disagreement; it's your right, too.)
 With similar logic applied, gun rights advocates argue that the nation’s patchwork of firearms laws governing the concealed carry of handguns are now circumspect under the same guidelines. In short, they reason if marriage equality is guaranteed from state to state, then so should concealed carry rights.
(emphasis added)



Not being a Constitutional Scholar (a la Our Dear Leader), I don't find this conclusion to be intuitively obvious.   I wonder about the use of the word "circumspect", so I looked it up:

  1. Watchful and descreet; cautious; prudent
  2. Well-considered
I think I would have chosen a different word; one which would say "not suspect" (or intuitively accepted)  but perhaps your dictionary is better than mine, and that's the usage which is intended here.


I've decided to accept the interpretation that if a thing is not specifically denied, it is accepted.
The Supreme Court chose to step in here and make a ruling that in that direction.  Don't like it?  Take it up with SCOTUS.

Gay marriage?  
You might think it an abomination, or that it undermines our society, but the Constitution doesn't say it's banned.

Firearms Possession?  
You might think that it's a threat to domestic tranquility, but the Constitution DOES say that it must be accepted.

So, if you don't like the Gay Marriage decision, perhaps you can take heart in that The Reluctant Arbiters *SCOTUS* are trying real hard to come down on the side of personal rights, rather than the rights of the government to "yield to the will of the Majority".

Which is what happens when two wolves and a lamb decide what's for dinner tonight.

PS:  Rereading this commentary, I see that I may have given the wrong impression.

I don't support Gay Marriage because it seems like a threshold decision which may provide further support to my Second Amendment position ... which needs nothing more than the Constitution.

I support Gay Marriage because (1) doesn't affect me, I don't care; (2) I have no religious training which demands that others abide by my personal moral beliefs; (3) I think that both political/ethical/moral opinions stand on their own merits.

 They get to choose who they want to spend their life, I get to choose which pistol I'm going to use at the next IPSC match.

And I have friends who will disagree vehemently.  If that means  I have to buy the pizza after every match forever, I think I can live with that.  But I still get to choose the beer, even if I don't buy the beer after the match.

I won't lose any friends over this.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't bet on it expanding CC rights. Religious marriage is a religious covenant. The state cannot regulate it. Civil marriage is a state governed contract.

Anonymous said...

It may also open the way for polygamy.