Hey, there! Log in / Register
Gay marriage debate continues
By adamg on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 9:28am
G says there's no going back:
... now that i can say i'm married i'm really not all that sure i want someone to mess with my life - with my feeling of being married just like every other married couple. and i want my kids to know that what their dads share is *nothing less* than what every other married couple shares. ...
Boston Bud was in the State House during the debate:
My husband and I were lucky enough to be in the gallery yesterday during the Constitutional Convention when they were voting on same sex marriage. Most of the speakers literally brought tears to my eyes. ...
Sandouri Dean Bey writes:
... Those who made their slogan "Let the people vote" believed that they could win by masking their bigotry as democracy. Despite the appeal that their false populism had for many in Massachusetts, there is absolutely nothing democratic about relegating an entire class of people to second class status. ...
Hub Politics: Beacon Hill Democrats Usurp Democracy:
... By voting to adjourn, Democrats violated the state constitution. Citizens for Limited Taxation
cites the sections of the Massachusetts constitution that clearly indicate this is the case. ...
Harry at Squaring the Boston Globe: Phyllis Schafly was right:
... Today the Globe and others promoting the liberal conventional wisdom arrogantly assure us that legalization of same-sex marriage is not a step toward legalization of polyamory or further "evolution" of the definition of marriage. Given the record, why should anyone believe them? ...
Mass. Marrier says the legislature can end the ongoing nastiness:
Let us now and belatedly:
1. Modify existing Massachusetts marriage laws to state clearly that they are gender neutral.
2. Fine-tune the initiative petition process to return it to its original and noble purpose. ...
Bruce argues that we won't really have equality until inner-city Bostonians can carry guns. Um, huh?
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What's so hard to understand
What's so hard to understand about the concept of "Equal rights for ALL"?
The day Massachusetts liberals extend to the poor, inner-city residents of Boston, the same right to keep and bear arms as their wealthy, politically-connected counterparts, perhaps I'll lend some credence to their cries of inequality and oppression.
The day Massachusetts liberals recognize that the people of Massachusetts have the same God-given right to self defense as the people of New Hampshire and Vermont, I'll show up at their next rally hold a sign, and even sing along.
"Equal rights for only those who agree with us" simply doesn't cut it.
This is about marriage rights
Gun owners are allowed to marry in this state, last time I checked. They can marry each other, or they can marry non-gun-owners.
Also, this state allows people to purchase and keep guns, provided they don't have certain criminal convictions or untreated mental illness. I don't know where you're getting the idea that people can't own guns here.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Gun silliness
The rule is local option.
In, say, the Berkshires, where the population density is low, I can imagine the police department just makes sure you know how to shoot a gun, and aren't crazy.
However, in, say, Somerville, with 25,000 people per square mile, it's a public health menace to let every moron have a gun. So you get the full panoply of "what on earth do you need this for?" and "prove to me that you're not going to leave this lying around and someone's going to shoot up your neighbors" gauntlet to pass through. Fortunately. I used to live near the North Street projects when the teenagers decided to shoot out the lights one night. I can only imagine what would have happened if everyone in the neighborhood had a gun to shoot back -- Baghdad, anyone?
If Boston is sane about this, people who want a hunting rifle and to go out West or up North and cull the moose herd are still able to. But the nut who "wants to protect himself" and can't see the point of locked cabinets and trigger locks can, well, go away already.
No Cigar
So, requiring marriage license applicants to pay upwards of $900 out of pocket for a marriage license would be OK by you?
Requiring people to show an ID at the voting booth amounts to a "racist poll tax" according to many of the same people who feel that requiring someone to pay $900 for a gun license is sound, common-sense policy, right?
I mean, we gotta keep them uppity po' folk under control, right?
How about allowing town clerks to arbitrarily deny marriage licenses to anyone they deem "unsuitable" to be married, even if the applicants meet all the legal requirements?
How would that sit with you?
Welcome to the world of the Masachusett gun owner.
If my right to defend myself can be arbirarily stripped from me by my elected officials [read: Jarrett "I've NEVER met a gun control law I didn't lke" Barrios], then forgive me if I'm not overly sympathetic for your cause to retain your "rights".
AS I've said on many occasion, I believe that all people should be free to marry whomever they choose. It's the doublestandards and flagrant hypocrisy in play here that burns my goat.
"..this state allows people to purchase and keep guns, provided they don't have certain criminal convictions or untreated mental illness."
Believe me, I wish that were true.
Come back to the discussion when you have a more complete understanding of what "discretionary licensing authority" means.
Or, as your boy, Deval, would say, "Connect the dots."
And, believe me...
Nothing smells worse than burnt goat.
Don't Bring God Into It
Self defense with a gun is a God-given right?
Please explain to me the difference between the laws for gun ownership for "wealthy politically-connected counterparts" and those for "poor inner city residents of Boston". Are you talking about the process for applying for a concealed weapon permit?
Fee for gun licenses
Perhaps the fee is so high in forward-thinking states so that guns are only legally in the possession of people who are able to save up the fee over a couple of months, showing that they have some level of self-control and self-determination. Which are things people should need to have in order to have a gun. If you can't manage to put a little money into savings each week and wait a few years to own a gun, then no, I don't want someone with your lack of impulse control running out and buying a gun right after someone makes you mad.
Oh, brother
"If you can't manage to put a little money into savings each week and wait a few years to own a gun, then no,"
Substitute "vote", "get married", "stage a protest", or "pray tot he God of your choosing" for "own a gun", and tell me your thinking doesn't change.
And, what the hell are you people so afraid of in having the law-abiding citizenry armed?
"I don't want someone with your lack of impulse control running out and buying a gun right after someone makes you mad."
Normally, I'd reply to an idiotic personal attack like that with something along trhe lines of "WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO JUDGE ME?", but you might think I was lacking "impulse control", so I'll refrain from doing so.
And, to the person who referred to me and my gun-owning friends as "nuts" and "morons", I appreciate your keeping this discussion above the intellectual level of a 12-year-old.
Um, Bruce?
Last time I looked, voting, getting married, staging a protest, and praying to a god of one's choice aren't things that can very very easily instantly result in the sudden death of oneself or of others.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
OK, getting a wee bit off-topic, but...
...things that can very very easily instantly result in the sudden death of oneself or of others.
There are plenty of activities and scenarios "that can very very easily instantly result in the sudden death of oneself or of others."
I was in Home Depot yesterday, buying some bathroom caulking when I walked through the tool section, as I'm prove to do. I was contemplating buying a new hammer to replace one I lost last year.
So, there I was, standing in front of a wall full of hammers and hatchets, with a coupl eother people standing right next to me.
Anyone of us could have "very very easily" picked up a hammer and killed the person next to us. What prevented us from doing so?
The same thing that prevents millions of gun owners every day from "very very easily" walking out the front door and shooting the next person they see walking down the street.
Millions of gun owners, with millions upon millions of deadly weapons at their disposal, have never so much as drawn their weapon on another human being, let a,one harmed or killed anyone. Not bad for a bunch of "nuts" and "morons".
I assume I don't have to ask, or answer, the question "How many of the people responsible for the ever-increasing number of shootings in Boston had obtained a license to own - never mind, carry - their firearm?".
And, speaking of very easily killing other people, just think about all the people driving through the city of Boston every day, and all the pedestrians sharing the roads with them.
Nothing would be easier then plowing through a bunch of people crossing the street in front of you. The lethal weapon is already in your hands, under your direct control. And, it's also, conveniently enough, a getaway vehicle. Yet, the streets miraculously are not running red with blood.
And, even convicted murderers, once free from prison, can buy a car and be licensed to operate the same on public ways.
The bottom line is: An OVERWHELMING percentage of the general population in this country CAN, and should be trusted with having the option of lethal force at their disposal, for the defense of themsleves, their families, and their communities.
Sadly, we have people like Jarrett Barrios and Tom Menino, for whom the default position is NO ONE should have that option, except for the poice and their personal bodyguards.
These same folks woudl have you believe that a 15 year-old girl is mature and responsible enough to seek an abortion without notifying her parents, and at the same time tell you that a 35-year-old mother of three lacks the skills and maturity to operate a device no more complicated than a pencil sharpener to p[rotect her family from harm.
And, it has little to do with the Second Amendment. It's about the government trusting the people from whom its power is derived.
Some people get it, some don't. That's life.
I, for one, have always
I, for one, have always coveted a taxi cab medallion, a liquor license, and my own broadcast frequency so I can put an after hours club in the back of my Lincoln Towncar and have a way to advertise the parties. How dare the government regulate those items and place such exorbitant prices on them!
2nd Ammendment
The gun issue is far out of my scope of expertise, but Bruce does have that pesky 2nd Ammendment on his side; there are no such Consititutional provisions for taxis, liquor liscenses (after the repeal of 18) or broadcast frequencies.
2nd amendment
"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."
Since we're not at civil war, this would mean that civilians have the right to keep and bear arms when the government regulates that said people and arms are needed to defend the free state.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
The Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Constitution is even less ambiguous:
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Backwards interpretation
In my view, when you say things like "keep and bear arms when the government regulates that said people and arms are needed" it shows you have it exactly backwards. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers to allow the people to be able to protect themselves FROM the State --- and to do that they need to be armed. They did NOT want the government to be able to regulate it. It's the people who are supposed to have the altimate power, not the Government. Remember that at the time it was written the "Militia" were small groups of neigbors organized for their own protection, and not a branch of the goverment.