Previous Post
Next Post

As you may have noticed, we here at TTAG are big believers in individual rights. All of them. As we have said many times (in one way or another), we want to live to see that day that homosexual married couples defend their legal marijuana plantations with machine guns. Civil rights aren’t mutually exclusive — you actually can be pro-gun and pro gay marriage at the same time. Unless, apparently, you want to attend the Capitol City Pride Parade in Olympia Washington. In that case, event organizers will demand that you leave your evil (legally owned and carried) guns at home because they cause psychological damage to others . . .

From the video’s description:

On Saturday, June 20th of 2015, the organization Capital City pride took up residence in Downtown Olympia in the state of Washington. The posted video is a first hand look at how the organization claims to stand for equal rights for all, even saying so on many items of merchandise sold and given away all during the event.

A group of 4 community members tried to enter the public event going on with their assorted weapons and gear on their bodies. All of the weapons had loaded magazines and clear chambers. As the Second Amendments states, citizens of the United States right to bear arms shall not be infringed. As the group attempts to peaceably enter the event and partake in the festivities, the Capital City pride staff blocked the entrance and told the group of 4 to go away because they “Do not feel safe with people with guns around” even though they were there to support and defend the rights of the people.

This blatant act of discrimination should not be allowed. They cannot be taken seriously as an organization that is all for rights and equality if they block the entrance to a public area based on what a person is wearing, or what they look like. They are more willing to hate on somebody exercising their civil rights that are guaranteed by the constitution to further make sure that their own feelings aren’t hurt. This type of hypocritical behavior is a prime example as to why groups like these aren’t taken seriously.

Open carry can provoke this kind of intolerance from some people. And from the video it seems like this reaction was exactly what the group was hoping to achieve. It’s the firearms equivalent of chanting “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it!” An in-your-face approach to force acceptance. Not everyone will react positively to that strategy. So who’s on the wrong side of history here?

Previous Post
Next Post

263 COMMENTS

    • What’s jumped the shark is this notion that, in the real world, in the face of armed aggressors, a marginalized, fringe or minority group’s best defense isn’t an armed one.

      There’s a point where nonviolent admonishment being the only response is nothing but self sacrifice for zero gain.

      In the growing light of firearm stigmatization even at the cost of lives – which was so recently highlighted in S.C., – this is entirely relevant – even if some people “don’t wanna hear about the gays” and would rather read more boring ammo penetration tests than engage in the sometimes uncomfortable discourse around protecting our natural right to self defense.

      • “this is entirely relevant – even if some people “don’t wanna hear about the gays” and would rather read more boring ammo penetration tests than engage in the sometimes uncomfortable discourse around protecting our natural right to self defense.”

        http://i.imgur.com/8HhL3M5.gif

      • I would not say that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, more Conditional.
        If you don’t support my Right to Defend my life, then I don’t give a damn about ANY of your rights.

        f you don’t support my gun rights, then I will fight and vote and lobby against your gay rights and your same-sex marriage.

        Put in a simpler way, if you don’t support my Gun Rights, I don’t support your Gay rights.

        But even if you did support my gun rights, does not necessarily mean that I will support your gay rights.

        I

        • So… If you can’t have ONE of your rights, you’ll vote to take away another persons other rights?

          Did you ever think that the other person is doing the same thing? “Gosh if the government tells me I can’t wed the person I want (tax benefits and otherwise), then I’ll just vote to get rid of all other rights.”

        • Why do YOU care so much about what other people are doing in absence of you?

          I’ve never understood why people seem to care so much about fighting gay rights. If you’re not gay, why fight against it? it’s literally no loss to you. you don’t have to agree with it, but it will never affect you whether you agree with them or not, so why not let them have the same rights as everyone else (as they should have)?

        • While I do support your gun rights, that just sounds like petty schoolyard vengefulness.

      • I have an FB friend I knew from an all-male academy in the Bronx. He was a 6′ tall badass Irishman who loved big guns, fast cars and loud rock and roll. Now she’s a 6′ tall badass Irish chick in CA who still loves big guns, fast cars (builds them too) and loud rock and roll. WHAT changed? Nothing that matters to me I couldn’t care less.

        Nicki is a mover and shaker in CalGuns and the Pink Pistols. She rallied a lot of support to thwart the city of San Fran from shutting their ONLY legal gun shop a few years ago. Count you allies by their actions not lifestyles.

        Ray

        • Out standing. The hard lefties show their true colors.

          It kind of reminds me of a story told by a former Mass. State Trooper. Three punks tried to roll a gay Merchant Seaman in a Boston Park. He was 6’6″ and all male. Up shot of the story is that the punks were beaten to a pulp with one having his head stuffed into a urinal. As the Seaman was led away he said. “I may be queer but I’m no pansy.”

          I guess the TTAG want to leave their people unprotected and afraid.

    • I dunno about jumping the shark yet, but pushing the idea that if you favor 2nd Amendment rights therefore you should also be in line with the gay rights movement is definitely getting there.

      • He did NOT say that. He said they’re not mutually exclusive. Saying they aren’t mutually exclusive is not in any way saying that they’re conjoined.

      • What was implied is that people can do what they want in their own domicile so long as it doesn’t mess with anyone else.

        Not that you have to “support” anyone you don’t want to.

      • Please explain to me how TTAG explaining ITS viewpoint implies that YOU should agree with said viewpoint? After reading and re-reading the first few sentences – and the entire article – I still can’t make that connection. I don’t want to speak for Michelle, but I believe we’d both appreciate your clarification.

        • No, you’re right, I’m waiting for further clarification as well.

          He says it was “strongly implied” in the first few sentences. Strangely, I read “We here at TTAG”…”We want”, versus the “You should” or “You ought to” that NS must have seen.

      • If the government is allowed to control something so personal as who we decide to wed, then what makes you think they’ll stop there?

        • The government controls what marriages it considers legitimate for its purposes. That’s what’s at issue. Probate, spousal privilege, power of attorney, hospital visitation, child custody, marriage dissolution procedures, including property disposition, and so on and so forth. There are governmental actions taken with consideration of marital status constantly. What gay people are asking for is the right to have their relationships included in those considerations. If a celebutant can meet a random stranger in Vegas and they can get married after knowing each other for 45 minutes, then why is that a more legitimate relationship that a couple that’s been committed to each other for 45 years?

      • I find it odd that him and that guy Paul went missing for the longest time, now they both come back out of no where. Was a better atmosphere when they were gone.

    • Wrong! Gay rights or gun rights, they’re Human Rights! Don’t dismiss a potential ally just because you’re not comfortable with their practices. Try to open your heart as well as your mind to the possibilities of a Gay/Straight Pro-Gun/Pro-Liberty movement!

    • There is a civil right to gay marriage? How about three gay people getting married–who are we to judge? How about marriage of siblings–modern reproductive medicine can sidestep the genetic problems. Father-daughter too. Where does is all stop? Not with two unrelated gays getting married, I can confidently say. [PETA may be able to protect other species, but don’t bet on it.]

      My guess is that Nick did not think his throwaway line through. He is merely parroting what the cool kids are saying.

      • Two men living together doing whatever with each other is none of my business. But it is not a marriage. Each has the same rights that I have and should be protected. But marriage is not something they can do because by definition it is between one man and one woman. Put an afro wig on Taylor Swift and she does not become Gladys Knight. A car with two missing wheels does not become a bicycle. You have to have chicken to make a chicken salad. Society defines marriage, individuals don’t. We set age restrictions on marriage. We do not allow incestual marriage. We don’t support forced marriage. What we do is simply define marriage and same sex couples do not fit the criteria. It is not anti gay to hold this position. I have friends and relatives who are gay and have attended a “wedding” between my wife’s cousin and her girlfriend. Gays as individuals are fine with me. I don’t like the “gay movement” because it is a leftist movement. They have a political agenda that involves more than the redefining of marriage.

      • How does the government have authority that anyone should seek their permission to marry? Do we live in a theocracy? Marriage is a private contract principally between consenting adults, often including the religious authority they personally choose to involve. I’m a straight man and I find it offensive that if/when I were to marry a woman I would be pressured to register my marriage with the government.

        I’m also not buying that consenting to two (or three!) adult homos seeking the benefits and protections of legal marriage for their committed relationship is going to lead to the legalization of parents marrying and raping their own children, as I hear from opponents of gay marriage envisioning a slippery slope. There’s no evidence of a nascent incestuous and pedophilic marriage movement waiting in the wings for gay marriage to win over the country. It certainly would have emerged by now, since gay marriage already has become the law of the land in most of the USA. I have a hard time imagining that in my lifetime incestuous marriage will become a popular social cause championed by the Democrats. Incest remains a strong universal taboo, no matter your political persuasion.

        • The only reason the government is involved with marriage is because there are different tax and health insurance criteria with both for married people. Ryan Anderson spells it out pretty clearly in a few talks. If you don’t care about tax or health insurance benefits you can “marry” anyone or anything or any multiple of anyones or anythings you want, but it will not be recognized by the government. Gay marriage does not fit the definition of marriage and has no proven societal benefit, although research is extremely limited at this point. If someone wants the benefits of marriage they have to have a marriage. I may want the benefits of an LLC, but if I don’t meet the requirements and never apply with the government I don’t get the benefits, no matter how much I call it a right.

      • >> There is a civil right to gay marriage? How about three gay people getting married–who are we to judge? How about marriage of siblings–modern reproductive medicine can sidestep the genetic problems. Father-daughter too. Where does is all stop? Not with two unrelated gays getting married, I can confidently say.

        Supposing that all of the above happens in practice (and everyone involved can and does give consent) – why should you care?

        • Because it is hijacking the definition of marriage. As a heterosexual, read normal, married man, I don’t want my union with my better half to be trivialized by a tiny group of alternative lifestyle activists. Just like if I were black and had fought against racism in the 1960s, I would be outraged at the gay political mob claiming what they are doing is just like the race struggles of that time. BULLSHIT!

          • If a group of gay men can so easily “trivialize” your marriage by calling their union a marriage as well, perhaps your marriage is just built on a very shaky ground? I’m heterosexual and married, and I don’t see how and why the way other people get married affects my marriage in the slightest.

            • It is the institution of marriage that is under attack, not mine personally. But I want to be part of that institution. I want it to be held in high regard that it deserves. The dismantling of this institution is unnecessary and harmful for societal norms going forward. To simplify the argument, we made marriage and we defined it so you can’t have it or change it’s meaning. Is it an exclusive club? Yes. It is ours and you don’t belong in it. Sorry. Start your own club.

              • >> But I want to be part of that institution. I want it to be held in high regard that it deserves.

                So you want to force other people to have a certain opinion of that institution, is that right?

                >> So simplify the argument, we made marriage and we defined it so you can’t have it or change it’s meaning. Is it an exclusive club? Yes. It is ours and you don’t belong in it.

                Who’s “we”?

              • Marriage has been many different things over the course of history. If you’re so into the roots, and you want marriage as it “always has been”, then you should also endorse common law marriage (historically, marriages were not registered by the states nor officiated by priests), polygamy, and child marriage (colonial marriage records have plenty of 10-12 year old girls as brides). Oh, and no miscegenation, that abomination has been banned for centuries until those liberal hippies legalized it a mere 60 years ago.

              • Yes and I think we improved marriage. It took some arguing to make it happen and we are arguing again. Just understand, you are the one trying to change it now. Not me.

    • Agreed. I can exercise my right to keep and bear arms all day long and not involve, entangle or encumber anyone else whatsoever.

      Counterfeit marriage, aka so-called “gay marriage”, is not a right at all. It imposes an enormous set of burdens on other people and cannot simply be exercised in isolation. It’s the biggest fraud in decades, and a great many otherwise wise people have been hoodwinked into supporting it.

      • “It imposes an enormous set of burdens on other people and cannot simply be exercised in isolation.”

        Do tell how two strangers in a committed relationship getting married somehow effects you?

      • Care to elaborate? I don’t see how two men or two women deciding to marry imposes any undue burden on you or I. Simply saying that it does does not make it so.

        • In fact its quite the opposite. The absence of a Gay Right of Marriage inflicts such couples with many legal and financial burdens, the absence of which Hetero Married couples take for granted.

        • Absolutely it does, and I don’t understand how anyone that looks at this topic from a logical standpoint could dispute that. The only people that have a problem with gay and lesbian marriage seem to be the ones who can’t put their finger on exactly why they have a problem with it other than it makes them uncomfortable.

          • Great argument! Because you can use that one universally.

            The only people that have a problem with ISIS beheading Christians and gays, seem to be the ones who can’t put their finger on exactly why they have a problem with it other than it makes them uncomfortable.

              • The only reason why anything can be wrong is if it directly causes physical or economical harm to someone who did not consent to it. Murder obviously causes harm. What harm is caused by two gays marrying?

              • >> What about assisted suicide? That is consensual. But also wrong.

                What about it? It’s consensual, and therefore not wrong, obviously.

                What’s the difference between assisted suicide and regular kind? Do you also think the latter is always wrong? Do you want to criminalize it?

              • Suicide has not been illegal in any US state since 1990s. But are you saying that you support the laws that existed before that (some of which punished it by execution, no less)?

              • So you are cool with suicide? I have no use for you or talking to you any longer. It has been determined at this point who the compassionate one is. I take it you support abortion as well. We have nothing more to say. Good day.

              • I am not “in favor” of suicide or abortion, but, naturally, I support the right of any sane person to do with their body as they see fit – including suicide and abortion.

                It’s very telling, though, that you believe that you own other people’s lives to the point where you’d use the force of law and the power of state to force them to live even if they don’t want to, and punish them if they try to escape your clutches. So freedom-loving of you.

        • @Michael,

          Patently absurd comparison. The beheadees are opposed to it because it kills them. Other concerned people have a problem with it because it’s murder.

          Now, your issue with gay marriage compares to this HOW?

          It doesn’t, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking at a third grade level in public.

    • LGBT people need firearms and training even more than heterosexuals. With the level of violence, ignorance, and hatred directed their way, LGBT people need an effective means to protect their lives in the threat of grave bodily harm or death.

      It does matter.

  1. … but it’s perfectly fine to adopt a symbol of the horrors of Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of the gay pride movement? No psychological harm there, none at all.

      • He means the pink triangle, which Nazis have used to identify homosexual inmates in their concentration camp.

        Then again, they have also used the Star of David to identify Jews. So what now, should they stop using it, too? The group itself using such a symbol, considering its history, is basically just a manifestation of defiance. “You tried to kill us all, yet here we are, and we’re not afraid to be open about it”.

  2. This is important. We need vocal minorities on our side, particularly in the news like this.

    I hope the irony makes large waves.

  3. “…So who’s on the wrong side of history here?”

    Without more specifics I am going to go with the group asking the people leave being in the wrong.

    If someone were to tell this group “we don’t want your kind here” there would be such howling and screaming. But when they say it to some other group its OK because we should respect their opinions and decisions.

    Not to oversimplify too much …. you are for rights or you are not. If you want to pick and choose which rights are OK and which aren’t then you can’t really complain when the decision winds up against your rights.

    • You can believe in whatever you want….as long as it coincides with what I do. Otherwise you are wrong and evil. And now that every single idiot has a voice through social media, we will use our collective bigotry (but not bigotry since we’re right and your wrong) to destroy your career and any hope for a peaceful future.

      • I am so going to steal that! I’ve got a couple of other conversations I am involved in currently that this would sum up perfectly!

  4. Man oh man. After seeing all the catholic-bashing a few posts back, I expect things are gonna get ugly in the comments here on this one, real quick.

    • Which Nick mentioned, are not necessarily conjoined notions.

      A lot of gay people carry. Maybe it’s just my part of the country, but I don’t know any who don’t.

      After being assaulted a few times, it’s no longer an academic issue.

    • I find the problematic underlying point of view is statism, liberal or conservative. I honestly believe that if statism was dropped from the equation, liberals and conservatives could live comfortably together in a free society.

      (I freely acknowledge progressives tend to be more anti-gun than those more towards the right. However, the extreme right typically embraces privilege in the place of actual exercise of the RKBA.)

  5. The “we have a right to feel safe” chant and the “you are carrying a weapon of death” statement were pathetic.

    • “we have a right to feel safe” No where is “feeling” protected under any law that I’m aware of, so candy pants woman who started that stupid chant only has the right to leave if she is uncomfortable. Forgive me, but i just want to smack anyone who says “I feel” What happened to “I think”?

    • “We’ll help you BE safe” and “We’re carring weapons of defense” would be an apt counter.

  6. I wish that the open carriers would have called the police so that we could see how they “interpreted” the law. Seems to me that a public parade permit in a public park makes everyone welcome; even if the KKK had come to join in, the law would have been on their side until and unless they started physically intimidating other people. Feeling uncomfortable is not grounds for a private individual to ban someone else from a public event. Had the police refused to enforce the open carriers’ rights, there would really have been grounds for a lawsuit. The hypocrisy is obvious but as Frank Masotti above said, this had everything to do with doctrinaire coastal liberalism and nothing to do with gays.

    • Depends on the parade, I guess. I help put on one of the biggest, and my goodness, the paperwork! It starts months in advance. We have very strict rules for entries, even though it’s held on public city streets with help from the police and the National Guard.

      • In Ohio, as long as we are individuals enjoying the public park and not organized counter-demonstrators, we can’t be denied entry upon, and free movement about, the public space. A long time friend of mine was a local Ohio prosecutor and lost a case over a similar issue a few years back. (IIRC, the case went up through courts, perhaps even to the Ohio Supreme Court.) Even in DC, when the police were trying to back us away from the Whitehouse fence where we later stacked barricades from the monuments, we told the officers that we were just citizens enjoying DC and weren’t going to leave that public space. Since we didn’t have a “leader” (their term) and didn’t claim to be a protest at that point, there was nothing they could really do.

  7. We need more gays, blacks, et al to do this gun rights stuff. Can’t say that they’re homophobic or racist or *insert bullshit here*

    Help to bring everyone into the light.

      • agreed…but the ppl in the video or the organizers of the event need to be aware that this action is 1) alienating a growing portion of their core membership by making assumptions about gun-rights opinions; 2) alienating the non-members that support all enumerated rights regardless of their personal views about the event’s purpose; 3) and also the primarily 2A supporters that would have supported them had they not selectively excluded the 2A in their call for equality.

      • Agreed. But all week long. Or maybe all month long.

        As the Pink Pistols say “Armed LGBTs don’t get bashed!”

    • I hope the open carriers are able to meet with and build some trust with the the event organizers over the following year so they can better take part next time.

  8. “So who’s on the wrong side of history here?”

    Well they have open carry in Texas now so you do the math.

  9. I love the whole, “support my rights to do as I want, but not to do as you want” mentality. A lot of that going on all around. These folks needed to be treated as those who kicked them out wanted to be treated. That whole “Golden Rule” thing and all. No room to complain about your rights being trampled on when you are trampling others rights at the same time. As a believer in absolutism for the second amendment, I also support ALL marriage. Just leave people be, and they will leave you be in return.

    • “Just leave people be, and they will leave you be in return.”

      A wonderful ideal, but unfortunately not the way things seem to work out. “Live and let live” is one of my guiding philosophies, and yet there’s no shortage of people who want to tell me exactly how to live my life.

  10. I’d love to see the video of Capital City pride staff telling the cops they needed to leave due to the psychological harm they were wantonly inflicting on the people simply trying to enjoy the event. Logic tells us this must have happened because they “Do not feel safe with people with guns around” and cops obviously have guns.

  11. TTAG and many of its readers have a very VERY strong libertarian bias when it comes to individual rights but remember these people who demanded the open carriers leave ascribe to certain schools of left and far-left thinking in which the right to bear arms is seen not as a moral good and personal right but a grave evil. The LGBT movement like it or no is heavily entrenched in the far-left and radical schools of thought that frown on private ownership of arms. Left wing and far-left wing statist elements have strongly co-opted or have been fundamental elements of the LGBT rights movement since day one. LGBT 2nd amendment advocates face a fierce uphill battle in their own community against ideas that are deeply entrenched and certain power brokers do not want changed.

    I’ve met a fair number of anrarcho-queer and anarcho-femenist elements whose philosophy one would think would lend its self to armed self defense are very much against it.

    • +1
      My best friend from college is a gay libertarian. He has told me fellow gays often criticize him for essentially “not being gay enough” because he doesn’t vote Democrat or believe in “gimme gimme free sh!t” economic socialism. This mentality has infected virtually every popular movement since the 60’s and it’s damn sad.

      • Radicalism (the political ideology) and other radical-left schools of thought have been the bread and butter of the LGBT movement across the globe and many proponents of those movements view those schools of thought as the only vehicles in which a truly equal and egalitarian society can be born.

      • Yeah, his friends just haven’t been jumped and beaten yet. Or at least in a serious situation where the that was there. In academic cocoons it’s easy to be an idealist. Same if you just, through luck, haven’t run into the dirt and violent side of humanity.

        Utopic idealism is nice and fluffy, while it works — until it doesn’t.

        I know a guy who swears that he’d be able to diffuse a home invasion by telling them to “take whatever they want” and “maybe be a listening ear to their plight of poverty”, and that he would basically be able to depend on the hidden kind heart of a misunderstood criminal. (He also didn’t lock his door because he thinks it’s “un neighborly”.

        All I can say is — hope that works out for ya bud, my experiences have made me a bit less trusting.

        He won’t learn until life shows him. For some idealists, that’s what it takes, as a wake-up call.

        And sometimes they don’t survive the wake-up call.

        Oh well.

        • It depends some will view acts of violence against them as the need for stronger collective (read: government) defense against criminal activity. In fact I would hazard to say most would argue along this line and would call for greater and greater disarmament of the population.

          I come from a completely different school of thought on armed defense and civil liberty than most TTAG readers and having spent time with thinkers on both extremes and everything in between I don’t buy into either the absolutist collective or absolutist individualist approach to civil liberties and their relation to armed self defense and ownership of arms.

    • There’s nothing inherently left-wing about LGBT. It’s just that most people don’t really go beyond mainstream party politics, and between the two major parties, it is the right-wing one that has been consistently anti-gay for the past two decades or so.

        • If you want to be “pro-family”, spend more time with yours. It has nothing to do with politics. Whenever “family values” are trotted out in public, it is always about suppressing something that the person in question finds objectionable, be it LGBT, abortion, sex ed etc. Back in the day, “family values” were similarly used in anti-miscegenation movement.

            • I’ve got nothing against it. But you’re also attacking other people’s marriages to make you feel more secure in yours for some mysterious reason, and that I have a problem with.

              The only way gay marriage is an attack on your family values is when your house is stormed by gay assault troopers who force you or your kid to marry someone of the same sex under gunpoint. If and when that happens, I’ll wholeheartedly support your resistance to such a travesty in defense of your family values 🙂

              • I assume you are a man. It doesn’t matter. You could be a woman and I make the same point. There is a movement in this country to do away with that identity. Same with marriage. Marriage was an identity that meant a man and a woman joined to make a family. That Identity is being changed. That is the problem DOMA supporters have with it. Let us keep our identity and our dignity.

              • >> Marriage was an identity that meant a man and a woman joined to make a family. That Identity is being changed. That is the problem DOMA supporters have with it. Let us keep our identity and our dignity.

                The only ones who can keep or lose the identity of your marriage is you and your spouse. The opinions of other people should be utterly irrelevant to that, if your marriage has any meaning whatsoever.

              • Oh, I do. I also know the difference between an oppressive society and a polite society. The latter is the one that keeps its collective nose out of its members’ consensual activities.

    • I never understood why a tenet of feminist theory wasn’t acknowledging that a threat of force is the only way to back up your assertion of rights. Who is more likely to be successfully on holding onto their rights, a feminist to claims they are equal or a feminist who claims they are equal and will kill you if your try to make them otherwise?

  12. I am trying to think of what rhymes with Nick that would show my utter contempt for this position. The idea that rights equate morality or even expediency is misguided at best and delusional at worst.

    Should Luke Pruitt have defended himself with a firearm when government goons put a stop to his alternative lifestyle?
    http://fox59.com/2013/07/01/fishers-man-arrested-on-bestiality-child-exploitation-charges/
    Who are you to say that he was wrong? See where this type of thinking leads? It leads to a society without morals and every man doing what’s right in his own eyes.
    If this is truly TTAGays position, it’s a sad state of affairs.

    • Um, children can’t be consenting adults. Big difference there.

      Even disregarding that red herring, since when is TTAG an “echo a complete party manifesto” blog, versus a gun rights blog?

      You really want TTAG to say “… except for the gay queers” every time they reaffirm that everyone has a natural and constitutionally protected right to self defense?

      • I don’t know if anyone disagrees with their natural and constitutional right to self-defense. But many might disagree with the casual blurring of natural and civil rights, especially when the recognition of the latter has been (in many cases) judicially imposed with questionable legal justification, i.e. twisting the 14th Amendment to mean whatever a particular judge wants it to mean. Again, I question why whether or not gay marriage should be a recognized civil right is important at with regards to the 2nd Amendment. As an aside, the irony of the whole affair the article speaks of isn’t lost to me though. Too bad it turned out like that.

        • Grindstone, you’re being disingenuous about the Loving decision, so I’ve provided the full quote — “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. ” It’s obvious that procreation between man and woman was the origin for why this right was regarded fundamental, and similarly obvious why the quote doesn’t apply to same sex marriage, which can’t be described as necessary to our “very existence and survival”.

        • It’s obvious that procreation between man and woman was the origin for why this right was regarded fundamental, and similarly obvious why the quote doesn’t apply to same sex marriage. Try again

          Ah, so then the infertile, sterile, menopausal, and voluntarily child-free should also be barred from marriage?

        • “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

          So you’re saying that marriage, being fundamental to our very existence and survival, is one of the basic civil rights of man?

          Well… To that I say, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          The antis play the qualification semantics game at us.

          Just because a given marriage doesn’t fulfill the prefatory clause, it doesn’t nullify the operative clause just because you’d like it to in order to further your argument in this particular case.

          In the decision it comes second, yes, but its gives a reason, to the operative clause. It doesn’t exist to limit it. It exists to give it credence and exemplifies the rationale.

          The idea that it limits marrages to furtherance of the species is drawn as interpretive conclusion. And would be bad news for infertile couples.

          • Destroy the family and you destroy society. By your standard, the black community should be thriving with all the ‘freedoms’ from convention that they have attained. Their high abortion rate, single mothers, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers. But it’s not so, is it?

        • I don’t think that follows, especially because several of those issues are impossible to immediately know, can be treated, etc. A gay relationship on the other hand is inherently not essential to “existence and survival”. But it’s irrelevant — I was pointing out that you half quoted a decision to give your opinion more weight, but the reason for why a straight interracial marriage was described as a fundamental civil right in Loving is that such unions have a quality that is inherently absent in a gay marriage.

        • Destroy the family and you destroy society.

          How is not barring gays from getting married destroying families and society?

          I don’t think that follows, especially because several of those issues are impossible to immediately know, can be treated, etc. A gay relationship on the other hand is inherently not essential to “existence and survival”.

          I see this is hard for you to directly address. I’ll make it easier on you: what about the voluntarily childfree? Their marriage will not involve raising children at any point. Should it also be barred?

          But it’s irrelevant — I was pointing out that you half quoted a decision to give your opinion more weight, but the reason for why a straight interracial marriage was described as a fundamental civil right in Loving is that such unions have a quality that is inherently absent in a gay marriage.

          And you’re using that “quality” to invalidate marriage as a right. That quality is also absent in childfree marriages. Yet we still “allow” them. Further, nothing in that quote states that marriage is only a right because of procreation.

        • Grindstone, gays have never been barred from marriage. This issue has been framed in lies from the start.

          The fact is that marriage is fundamentally a union between two people of the opposite sex. Gays have always been welcome to participate in it, but being gay tends to cause one to choose not to.

          The fact is that this movement had never been about equal rights, but about changing the definition of marriage to something it has never been, and quite frankly never will be, regardless of any laws or court rulings.

          I’m all for same sex unions and the property sharing and next of kin rights that would go with it, but let’s not reduce ourselves to lying to ourselves that it is fundamentally the same as marriage.

          It is different. That can not be denied rationally.

    • Whenever someone compares homosexuality to pedophilia and beasiality, it just demonstrates to me that the person doesn’t understand what “consent” means.

      • Loving v Virginia, wasn’t that the anti-miscegenation case?

        I can only imagine the hue and cry then if they dared defend themselves.

        The police forced their way into the Lovings’ home in the middle of the night, to tear apart and arrest two consensual people in a marriage who were harming no one.

        I wonder how many “Just comply with the prevailing majority” people would change their minds today if something like that were to happen again.

        • The same arguments used against anti-miscegenation laws are being used today. It’s absolutely disgusting. Nearly everything bigots use against gay marriage could apply to my straight, interracial marriage. These assholes proclaim freedom while holding a gun in one hand, yet want to trample the rights of others while holding a bible in the other.

        • C’mon; no one’s kicking down a door anywhere on two folks’ intimacy because they claim to be married. Anti-sodomy laws are all gone, per the Loving decision I assume, and the issue now is clerical and religious. Where the federal court can get off dictating what is and what shall be to a church is beyond my understanding, but somewhere along the way centuries back our government meshed ‘civil unions’ with official church-sanctioned mergers, and now the knot cannot be easily untied. A ‘just’ solution, equitable to all, with malice to none, would be to strike all marriage classifications and preferential treatment from government policy, and leave the pronouncement solely to churches’ discretion, and the benefits of recognition to communities. Your marriage will remain a ‘marriage’ in the eyes of certain churches and people, as it will no matter what the courts rule in the coming weeks, but the distinction will no longer matter as a public policy issue.

          But that’s not what is being sought; what is being sought is federally-enforced parity with a status bestowed by an entity that is not supposed to be subject to government policy preferences. Forced recognition by those with an opposed viewpoint of a couple’s (or group’s) status. Just how frequently are we forced –by way of legal action– to hold a person in such a way directly contradicting our own beliefs? It is a very rare occurrence in this country, and for a very good reason. In fact, this legal authority did not exist at all until the 14th amendment (of innumerable unintended consequences) because the potential for abuse in pursuit of ‘equality under the law’ is so obvious.

        • >> C’mon; no one’s kicking down a door anywhere on two folks’ intimacy because they claim to be married. Anti-sodomy laws are all gone, per the Loving decision I assume

          Sodomy laws were on the books and actually enforced as late as 2003, when SCOTUS struck them down in Lawrence v. Texas. They still remain on the books in several states, even though inoperative, and some of those states still teach that “homosexual conduct” is unlawful and punishable by state law.

          >> somewhere along the way centuries back our government meshed ‘civil unions’ with official church-sanctioned mergers

          Historically, marriage was actually neither government- nor church-regulated (yes, even for Christians). Basically, so long as two people lived as man and wife, and announced such to the world, they would be considered married – there were no special rites, the church would simply recognize such cohabitation as marriage. We still have the vestigial remains of that in form of common-law marriage in some countries and US states.

          This was actually a part of the canon law, and it was only in the 13th century that Catholic Church had decreed that unwitnessed and non-sanctified marriages are unadvisable, and they were only banned outright in the 16th century. As far as governments go, UK only abolished non-officiated marriages in 1753.

          Curiously, in the USA it was the other way around – Puritans didn’t condone church marriage, considering it a late and unnecessary Catholic innovation (quite accurately, apparently), but didn’t particularly like common law marriage, either. So in those colonies where they were the ruling majority, they instituted marriage by civil magistrates. From there it spread to other colonies, and by 1700 pretty much all of them had laws mandating such.

          >> Where the federal court can get off dictating what is and what shall be to a church is beyond my understanding

          They cannot and aren’t doing that. The entire same-sex marriage discussion is solely about state recognition of marriage. What the churches recognize for lithurgical purposes is up to them.

    • “It leads to a society without morals and every man doing what’s right in his own eyes.”

      As long as he isn’t hurting or infringing upon the rights of others, every man should be able to do whatever he wants. Drugs, sex, guns, religion…whatever. If done with other, consenting folks that’s a-okay by me also. Your slippery slope doesn’t exist in my world, as the line in my world is drawn at liberties that infringe on others’ liberties. Anything & everything that doesn’t is fair game.

      Quote bombing:

      “Government should allow persons to engage in whatever conduct they want to, no matter how deviant or abnormal it may be, so long as:
      (a) they know what they are doing,
      (b) they consent to it, and
      (c) no one — at least no one other than the participants — is harmed by it.”

      — Hugo Adam Bedau

      “Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.”
      — William Allen White

      “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.”
      — Clarence S. Darrow

      “The busybodies have begun to infect American society with a nasty intolerance — a zeal to police the private lives of others and hammer them into standard forms — A Nation of Finger Pointers.”
      — Lance Morrow

      “The real “haves” are they who can acquire freedom, self-confidence, and even riches without depriving others of them. They acquire all of these by developing and applying their potentialities. On the other hand, the real “have nots” are they who cannot have aught except by depriving others of it. They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich by making others poor.”
      — Eric Hoffer

      • “As long as he isn’t hurting or infringing upon the rights of others, every man should be able to do whatever he wants.”
        What about the clear and obvious federal bias toward those who choose to remain single? No bennies or tax breaks, there. Should the a later suit, after the hard won victory by gays of the ‘marriage with benefits’ seek to strike down the entire complex of laws, classifications, and rules the federal government holds for those with ‘married’ status? After all, the next suit is guaranteed to be polygamy, since 2 is just a number and 3+ are as well, why not 1 along with them?