The Great Equalizer

Gun rights equals gay rights - who knew?  From the Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — Using the new judicial muscle provided by the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the right to bear arms, the National Rifle Association and another pro-gun group sued San Francisco and its housing authority on Friday to invalidate a ban on handguns in public housing.

...In an interesting turn in a city known for its embrace of gay rights, the chief plaintiff in the suit against the city is a gay man living in a public housing development, owned by the federal government, who wants to have a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

...

A city of about 725,000, San Francisco has 12,000 residents living in public housing, all of whom are required to sign a lease that forbids a broad variety of weapons, including pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, automatic rifles, BB guns, as well as nunchucks, brass knuckles and stun guns. This blanket ban was begun in 2006, and the penalty for violation of the lease is eviction.

In the case filed on Friday, an anonymous gay man said that stipulation had deprived him of “any effective means of self-defense.”

A very clever choice of plantiff.

Megan McArdle explained yesterday that gun rights equals women's rights.

BONUS CHEAP SHOT:  The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can't find a right to possession of a firearm.

Comments

[Just happened in]

Well put bull's eye 'cheap shot.'

[syn]

"The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can't find a right to possession of a firearm."

I suppose the trick these days is to just stay in the middle so that eventually it will be popular enough to find?

[Daddy]

I think this San Fran gun rights case may be put on the back burner for a bit. THE INDEPENDENT (UK) newspaper (27 June 08) is reporting that the current big push in the City by the Bay is to get a ballot initiative passed so that the cities residents can vote on renaming San Francisco's biggest sewer, "The George W. Bush Sewage Plant." When such important civic missions as trying to humiliate the President are at hand, why would they waste time on picayune stuff like the Bill of Rights?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-francisco-to-vote-on-naming-sewer-after-george-bush-855433.html

[Chris]

Mayor Gruesome was extremely eloquent in lambasting the court for deciding that the constitution actually means what is plainly in the text.

This is the same mayor, I'd add, who, along with three other imperialists in black robes, finds a constitutional right to gay marriage in the CA constitution.

The choice of an "anonymous" gay man to sue the city is outstanding. Where will Gruesome side? He's gonna resemble a pretzel bathed in hair gel on this one.

This is a city, SF, where the criminals have no problems whatever obtaining firearms to perpetrate murder and mayhem on the general population. MS-13, you are welcome. Illegal aliens-sanctuary. Law-abiding citizens-not so much.

[bgates]

Daddy - he's been taking sh*t from those people for seven and a half years. Might as well get some credit for it.

[Daddy]

bgates

LOL!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Someone else observed about the Bush sewage plant that Bush had been dealing with the dirty jobs liberals don't want to do, and doing it well, so it made sense.

[richard mcenroe]

'GET AWAY FROM ME YOU FUCKING BREEDERS!' BAMBAMBAMBAMBAM

Sure, what could go wrong there?

I mean a POOR gay guy, living in public housing? I've watched Will & Grace, I know there's no such thing...

[Joe Schmo]

The 2nd Amendment means that government can ban any gun, any time, and for any reason. All you have to do is look at the text and that is clearly what it means.

Hey, if Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter can say that, why can't I?

[Denny, Alaska]

This is so hilarious! SF's chickens seem to be coming home to roost.

Now, if only we could get Berkley snared in a similar fate!

[Jeffersonian]

But isn't it closer to what Our Lord and Savior Barack says...you have an individual right to own firearms, but it's only valid if your city/county/township/parish/state all agree to let you exercise it?

[Thomas Jackson]

I was disappointed that Souter and Breyer didn't cite the laws of Zimbabwe and Burma in their dissent.

[Clint]

I hope someone will remind San Franciscans of their own history, as they consider whether only police officers and former police officers should be allowed to have guns.

In 1978, former police officer and city supervisor (equivalent to city councilman) Dan White walked into the mayor's office and shot Mayer Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk -- the first openly gay man elected to any public office in American history -- dead. He then walked out, walked into a police station, announced what he had done, and the police broke into applause.

If the mayor and a city councilman weren't safe inside City Hall, with armed guards and metal detectors...

[John Gardner]

Let's hear it for the Pink Pistols!! http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[John Gardner]

Let's hear it for the Pink Pistols!! http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[Tom]

One of the plaintiff's in the original DC case was a gay man who had survived an attempted bashing assault.

[Thomass]

"Posted by: Clint | June 28, 2008 at 03:44 PM"

Since your talking SF history don't leave out their ties to the kool aid cult. It gets sent down the memory hole since progressives want to believe it was all about him being gay (musta been a hate crime...)...

[SteveMG]

... can't find a right to possession of a firearm

Michael Kinsley, hardly a righty, once pointed out that if liberals read the Second Amendment the way they read the other Bill of Rights that they would demand government buy every poor person in America a gun.

Several, in fact.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I don't know if this is such a good test case. The fact that it's public housing will muddy the waters in a lot of people's minds.

[taxlawstudent]

Clint you are sick. That is despicable. The White assassinations were a very traumatic time for the city and still weigh heavily on our minds. Saying the police applauded White is bogus and extremely offensive.

Say what you want about your disagreements with gun control advocates. Even the "bonus cheap shot" is totally fine b/c it's on point.

[clarice]

Always look for the penumbras..

[Mountain Gal]

Uummmm.

Re Dan White:

In *1978* there were metal detectors and armed guards at City Hall?

May be 'twas thus -- but I didn't think that showed up for another 10 or 15 years ....

I was there in SF 1967 and 68 and while the times were a changin' I don't think they were electronically frisking everyone 10 years later ....

[Forbes]

Well, one of the plaintiffs in Heller was gay, so it seems the NRA is taking the hint about what works.

[Doug Santo]

The bonus cheap shot is not a cheap shot. It is a common sense understanding of the constitution. The truth in that statement cannot be denied. All the high-faluting arguements and ciphering put forth by the liberal justices can't touch it for its simplicity and truth.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

[FDA]

The gay man in the Heller case was a Cato employee and the NRA was not involved in bringing the Heller case

[FDA]

The gay man in the Heller case was a Cato employee and the NRA was not involved in bringing the Heller case

[Robert Heinlein (deceased)]

Allow myself to quote myself:

An armed society is a polite society.

-

[MikeS]

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Does this mean he will appoint judges who would empathize with an 8 year old rape victim rather than her rapist, or a gay man who is afraid he can't protect himself while living in public housing?

[Sara]

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

I was a poor teenage Mom, a victim of a rape, and I'm now a poor disabled old person, so ask me anything you want, I'll be happy to pontificate on anything you need to know.

[Annony]

If the gay man is anonymous, how are they going to establish that he's gay? Or is that just presumed in San Fransisco?

[Jane]

LOL

[Dave]

The same people who can find the right to bear arms without the part about "Militia" are the same people who are standing around watching the rest of the Constitution being torn up because they only care about that one amendment.

How can you think that having guns is going to protect you from tyranny when you can't be bothered to tell your Congressman that you're going to put him out of a job if he doesn't do his job and restore the checks and balances guaranteed by the founders of this country?

[Tom]

Dave, I don't know who you are talking about, aside from perhaps some fantasy person in your own head. The majority of the country believes that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms (which it does, always did, and which the Supreme Court recognized this week). Libertarians, like me, have been aghast at a lot of what's gone on with the Constitution, probably a lot longer than you (anyone who thinks that the threats to our liberties started and will stop with the Presidency of George W. Bush is intellectually dishonest). And we write Congress too.

[Aaron]

Bonus cheap shot is bogus. SCOTUS has not ruled for gay marriage.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
SCOTUS has not ruled for gay marriage.
---

I think it's up to the states to decide.

[Sara]

Apparently not in Calif. 89. We voted against gay marriage and the court told us to go to hell, they were going to do it anyway.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
We voted against gay marriage and the court told us to go to hell,
---

State constitutions trump state laws; you'd have to amend the constitution to have an effective ban.

[Sara]

Do you have the reference in the Constitution, please?

[Gabriel Hanna]

Judges can declare the state constitution unconstitutional. In Nevada's case, the state legislature refused to pass the governor's budget with the constitutionally mandated supermajority. The state supreme court ordered the budget passed, because the preamble says that the state legislature is supposed to fund education.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/state_issues/nevada_judicial_activism.htm

If a judge can say a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, they can say that so is a gay marriage amendment.

Some people apparently think that a constitution means whatever a judges says it means.

[Sara]

Here is where we stand:

The activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and the governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and the citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. Citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship."

So, a ban proposition will be on the ballot in Nov. -- AGAIN, and it will pass again. Polls have about a 20 point favorable for those in favor of marriage between man and woman over gay marriage.

[DJ]

@ Aaron: The "same folks" doesn't have to refer to SCOTUS (though admittedly this is vague in the post). It can refer to the majority of legal academics: they tend to read the Constitution as TM lampoons, no?

[Sara]

In case you are confused, Slate attempts to clear things up:

In case you are confused about whose superactivist-hero powers trump here, let me add that California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger—who had vetoed both attempts by the state Legislature to enact bills legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that they would override the more than 60 percent of the state's voters who'd approved 2000 referendum—announced today that he would abide by the state Supreme Court's decision. "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement today. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

So—and in the event that you are scoring this along with me from the bleachers—that means the Governator, who was once prepared to thwart the will of the Legislature in order to uphold the will of the people, is not prepared to usurp the prerogative of the courts to thwart the will of the people or the Legislature. Nor will he back any future attempts of the people to usurp the powers of the courts. Which by some lights makes him a seriously activist governor and by others makes him the biggest wuss in history.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
So, a ban proposition will be on the ballot in Nov. -- AGAIN, and it will pass again. Polls have about a 20 point favorable for those in favor of marriage between man and woman over gay marriage.
---

Sounds like you're on your way to amending the constitution, which is what the court says you need to do.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

But I'm surprised that supposedly freedom-maximizing Republicans would pass an amendment to restrict someone's freedom.

Seems to violate various 'truth in labeling' laws.

[Barry]

"pass an amendment to restrict someone's freedom."

How is not recognizing gay relationships restricting freedom?

[Gabriel Hanna]

e271828... you're missing the point.

If a judge can order a state legislature to pass a budget, why can't they order a governor to sign a bill or override his veto?

If a judge can decide that an amendment is inconsistent with the older part of the constitution it modifies, and declare it "unconstitutional", then what is the point of amendments?

(Incidentally, why are you interested in restricting the freedom of brothers to marry sisters? That's as fair as your question abotu gay marriage. I know incest between consenting adults is icky to you, but so is gay marriage to others--and as for retard babies, the law doesn't require couples to get screened for genetic defects, so clearly incest laws are merely expressions of Jesus-loving prejudice.)

Where in the Federal Constituion does the Supreme Court get to be sole arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional? In fact, there is an article that declares Congress to have the power to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction!

All of us are obligated to defend the Constitution. It is not a power restricted by any document to judges alone.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
How is not recognizing gay relationships restricting freedom?
---

Would not recognizing hetero relationships be restricting freedom?

[Gabriel Hanna]

Incidentally, e271828, how can the Supreme Court have the power to tell Congress what to do about Guantanamo Bay when in Article II it says "The Congress... shall have the power

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

and in Article III section 2

"the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Do judges have to obey the constitution or do they have the right to make up their own?

[rickinstl]

"But I'm surprised that supposedly freedom-maximizing Republicans would pass an amendment to restrict someone's freedom."

Snarky B.S.

Look at it this way...
Perhaps they want to be free to live in a society where gay men dressed in leather chaps can't waggle their penises at them on a public street.
Perhaps they want to send their children to schools (which they pay out the nose for) where they won't be propagandized by the very well-funded gay lobby and their allies in the teachers unions.
Perhaps they just want normalcy as they were raised to understand it.
The people who are invading the rights of others are the very well-funded gay lobbying groups, the extremely gay-friendly media, and the extremely well-funded (Soros anyone?)and gay-friendly democratic party.

[Gabriel Hanna]

e271828, while according you the respect due to an important mathematical constant, it seems that you are living in an oligarchy of judges who can have whatever powers they make up and you are totally fine with that.

Again--what's the point of amending a constitution if judges think they just get to ignore what the amendments say? What's the point of a legislature and an executive if they have to do whatever the judiciary tells them to?

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
If a judge can order a state legislature to pass a budget, why can't they order a governor to sign a bill or override his veto?
---

Wild guess, but it probably has to do with the roles/responsibilities outlined in the constitution.

---
Incidentally, why are you interested in restricting the freedom of brothers to marry sisters?
---

Frankly, I really don't think we need such laws, any more than we need a law requiring people to breathe every few seconds. I think society would somehow muddle on if we eliminated such laws.

---
Where in the Federal Constituion does the Supreme Court get to be sole arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional?
---

Antonin Scalia sure seems to think that's the case; you should take it up with him.

[Sara]

Why should a small selfish minority be able to violate the Constitutional right to religious freedom of the rest of us?

There should be marriages, those vows said before God, and Civil Unions where vows are said to the State. If you don't want to partner up with a vow to God, then get married at the courthouse or by a justice of the peace and get a civil union or committment certificate and let the rest of us who look at marriage as a sacred vow between a man and woman form a marriage.

[Gabriel Hanna]

e271828, you're just being a troll. I pointed out a case where judges overrode a legislature and ordered them to pass a bill against the explicit text of a constitutional amendment--

and you have nothing to say about it. You're just pretending it didn't happen.

[rickinstl]

Antonin Scalia sure seems to think that's the case; you should take it up with him.

Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5e | June 28, 2008 at 10:04 PM

No, although Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg does.
Your problem is that Scalia probably would talk to you, while Ginsberg would have the Palace Guard toss you out on your ass.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
Perhaps they want to be free to live in a society where gay men dressed in leather chaps can't waggle their penises at them on a public street.
---

That's just crazy talk; penis waggling, both gay and hetero, is clearly covered in the US Constitution.

You really think Scalia has pants on under the robe?

[Gabriel Hanna]

eightnine, your jackassery gets more and more evident.

Let's have a reasoned argument. If judges in Nevada get to tell a legislature to pass the governors budget, when the constitution says they don't have to, what's the point of amendmenets, legislatures and judges?

The longer you don't respond, the more trollish you look.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
Why should a small selfish minority be able to violate the Constitutional right to religious freedom of the rest of us?
---

Or large selfish majorities for that matter.

Until you get enough votes to amend the constitution, then the majority can do as it pleases.

And no freedom is absolute; there are restrictions on each and every one of them.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

[Sara]

Gee, for 7 years I was 24/7 caretaker for my elderly Mother after her strokes. I had to exhaust all of her savings and all of my own in order to take care of her. I lost my own SS quarterly credits during that time and when she died I was not eligible for survivor benefits. So, overall, I saved the government hundreds of thousands of dollars and ended up broke, unemployed and in a decidedly lesser position for my own SS benefits in order to give her a happier and safer last years with those who loved her rather than a some stinky nursing home and neglect.

Instead of all those Powers of Attys., think of it, we could have "married" here in California and I'd get survivor benefits and about double my SS income.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
If judges in Nevada get to tell a legislature to pass the governors budget, when the constitution says they don't have to, what's the point of amendmenets, legislatures and judges?
---

Not being a citizen of Nevada, I couldn't hazard a guess.

[Gabriel Hanna]

Not being a citizen of Nevada, I couldn't hazard a guess.

That's some reasoned and insightful commentary.

In other words, a few posts ago you just said that could never happen, and now when you acknowledge it does, you just dismiss it.

Here's your troll hat.

[Sara]

89, we've already voted it once and the court said, "so what!" and ruled the other way. The will of the people is a foreign concept in the Republik of Caleeeforneeeeia.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
Instead of all those Powers of Attys., think of it, we could have "married" here in California and I'd get survivor benefits and about double my SS income.
---

So you blame some political party for your situation?

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
In other words, a few posts ago you just said that could never happen
---

I believe you are mistaken.

[Gabriel Hanna]

eightnine, let me quote you:

"If a judge can order a state legislature to pass a budget, why can't they order a governor to sign a bill or override his veto?
---

Wild guess, but it probably has to do with the roles/responsibilities outlined in the constitution."

uh huh. But they did do it. You said they couldn't.

But do go ahead and say you didn't say what you said. Troll.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
89, we've already voted it once and the court said, "so what!" and ruled the other way.
---

Sounded like the first attempts were based on modifications to state law, while this one is a constitutional remedy.

There's a difference.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
You said they couldn't.
---

What I said was that the roles of the three branches are spelled out in the state constitution, and not being a constitutional scholar, I have no idea what might be in there.

[Sara]

BTW, 89, there is no Constitutional right enumerated in the CA State Constitution that I can find that says anything about the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." At least I can't find it, maybe you or someone else can and point it out to me.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
BTW, 89, there is no Constitutional right enumerated in the CA State Constitution that I can find that says anything about the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." At least I can't find it, maybe you or someone else can and point it out to me.
---

You need to convince your court, not me.

And if the court gets it wrong, I'm assuming that the citizens and/or their representatives have the right and the ability to change the constitution to make clear its will.

Which is what you say you're doing.

[Californio]

To quote Glen Reynolds (instapundit): he would have no problem living in a world where happily married gay couples have closets full of assault weapons.

I don't care what consenting adults do - be it get married (not what I would recommend for ANYONE - ) or buy large numbers of firearms. Of course, if these free adults were to engage in conspiracy to commit acts of violence (a'la street gangs) i also would have no problem declaring them domestic terrorist organizations and deporting them to Guantanamo Bay - never to be heard from again (I guess that makes me a liberterian...fascist?)

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
there is no Constitutional right enumerated
---

BTW, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says that corporate entities have legal standing similar to citizens, and yet the court has said such rights exist.

Republicans don't spend much time decrying this particularly liberal interpretation of the constitution.

[Sara]

In defending the constitutionality of the current statutory scheme, the Attorney General of California maintains that even if the constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution applies to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples, this right should not be understood as requiring the Legislature to designate a couple's official family relationship by the term "marriage," as opposed to some other nomenclature. The Attorney General, observing that fundamental constitutional rights generally are defined by substance rather than by form, reasons that so long as the state affords a couple all of the constitutionally protected substantive incidents of marriage, the state does not violate the couple's constitutional right to marry simply by assigning their official relationship a name other than marriage. Because the Attorney General maintains that California's current domestic partnership legislation affords same-sex couples all of the core substantive rights that plausibly may be guaranteed to an individual or couple as elements of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry, the Attorney General concludes that the current California statutory scheme relating to marriage and domestic partnership does not violate the fundamental constitutional right to marry embodied in the California Constitution.

We need not decide in this case whether the name "marriage" is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple's constitutional right even if - perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage - the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples. Under the current statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

So, in order to preserve the dignity of same sex coupling, married men and women have their marriages turned into a farce.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
turned into a farce.
---

Hetero's have been making farces of their marriages for centuries; it's not a new development.

[Barry]

"Would not recognizing hetero relationships be restricting freedom?"

No. Now, why not try and answer my original question?

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
turned into a farce.
---

"Sorry honey, not tonight; I heard some lesbians got hitched in Massachusetts and I just feel so distant from you because of it."

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
"Would not recognizing hetero relationships be restricting freedom?"

No
---

So we could refuse hetero's the right to marriage and this wouldn't be restricting their freedom?

[Sara]

And 89, I don't see what being a Republican or Democrat has to do with anything when it comes to how men and women view their marriage vows.

4 Justices on the most liberal court in the nation have made this ruling that millions are now forced to live with, even though they have spoken out against with their vote.

[Sara]

That's 4 people out of approx. 37 million.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
4 Justices on the most liberal court in the nation have made this ruling that millions are now forced to live with, even though they have spoken out against with their vote.
---

That's the downside of being a part of a larger society; there are trade-offs, and sometimes things don't go your way.

But there are procedures for dealing with these events, and it's up to the citizenry to take an active role when things go badly.

[Sara]

To amend the Constitution it only requires a simple majority of voters. The ban passed in 2000 by 61.4%. However, the amendment must also pass both State houses by 2/3rds.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
That's 4 people out of approx. 37 million.
---

And 1 president, 9 justices and 535 congressmen out of 300 million.

It's remarkable that it works as well as it does; the trick is that we all abide by the rules of how to work within the system to express our views.

[Chris]

89,
I figured it out now. That's the year you were born, right? This post is about the SC ruling on the 2nd amendment, not marriage.

Some of us, including the author, have pointed out that lib's like you seem to read all sorts of rights into the document that aren't spelled out, while simultaneously reading out those that are explicitly enumerated.

What say you, obstreperous pontificator of obtuseness? Why do you prefer rule by judicial fiat to that which has worked quite well up until now?

[Sara]

The legislature passed a ban in 1977, but as we've seen with recent events, the court can ignore both the will of the people and the will of the legislature.

[boris]

the trick is that we all abide by the rules of how to work within the system to express our views

Except for that one time the 1st Republican president had to chill some rebelious dimorats. Room temp as I recall.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

On a more personal note; I know a woman who became paralyzed in an accident in her 30's and lost her husband just a few years later.

Things can go horribly wrong through no fault of our own, and I can't imagine the daily struggle your life must be; the stress alone can be debilitating, let alone any physical limitations.

I'm not a praying man, but I'll always be sensitive to your situation when responding to you in these forums; in case you haven't noticed, I can be kind of a smart-ass, so it's harder than it might seem, but feel free to kick me back in line should I stray. ;-)

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
read all sorts of rights into the document
---

Do you find any mention of corporate entities being given similar privileges to individuals in the US constitution?

Because the courts read it that way, and conservatives are quite happy with that state of affairs.

[Barry]

"So we could refuse hetero's the right to marriage and this wouldn't be restricting their freedom?"

Your avoiding the question. I notice this is what you always do. So, to answer yours, not "recognizing" does not limit freedom.

Now, answer mine please.

[boris]

kind of a smart-ass

Kind of? That's all you do. It's not the smart ass that's the problem, it's the complete lack of anything but.

[boris]

find any mention of corporate entities being given similar privileges to individuals in the US constitution?

lame

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
How is not recognizing gay relationships restricting freedom?
---

Because marriage carries with it a number of legal considerations unavailable to unmarried individuals, thus restrictions impair their ability to enter into this type of legal arrangement.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
Kind of? That's all you do. It's not the smart ass that's the problem, it's the complete lack of anything but.
---

You sure whine a lot; you must be a lot of fun at parties.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

What's wrong boris; can't find a girl good enough for you? or maybe no woman will have you?

[Sara]

Because marriage carries with it a number of legal considerations unavailable to unmarried individuals, thus restrictions impair their ability to enter into this type of legal arrangement.

Sorry, we already have the Domestic Partnership Act that gives the same rights. Try again.

[Chris]

"Do you find any mention of corporate entities being given similar privileges to individuals in the US constitution?

Because the courts read it that way, and conservatives are quite happy with that state of affairs."

Is there a specific case which has you bothered?

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
Sorry, we already have the Domestic Partnership Act that gives the same rights. Try again.
---

From a policy perspective I see no problem once the legal aspects are addressed.

So it's up to your justices.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
Is there a specific case which has you bothered?
---

None per se; just making the point that it's not just liberals who are in favor of an expansive reading of the constitution when it suits their purposes.

[Barry]

"thus restrictions impair their ability to enter into this type of legal arrangement."

Those are defined as privileges, not freedoms.

Minority's are granted affirmative action privilege. I might disagree with the concept, but I don't find it to limit freedom.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

BTW, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says that corporate entities have legal standing similar to citizens, and yet the court has said such rights exist.

eµ, there's nothing in particular in the Constitution that says States have the power to do a lot of things; that's because the Constitution more or less enumerates what the Federal government *can* do, and what the States, as part of joining the federal constitution, *can't* do. Now in this case, while I'm not a lawyer, I believe that this notion of a corporation being a "legal person" far predates the US Constitution, and is "inherited" from Common Law. You might --- since it apparently interests you --- read the Wikipedia article.

I mean, if you want actual information.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

Thx, charlie; that looks interesting.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

Also found this on privacy and common law

[Chris]

"None per se; just making the point that it's not just liberals who are in favor of an expansive reading of the constitution when it suits their purposes."

Well then, WTF are you talking about? You have no argument. Look, over here! the court ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals. Only you can't point to anything specific.

I don't know any conservative advocating individual rights for corporations. They're different, which is why you have a whole industry under the generic heading, corporate law.

Corporations can't get married, for example. They can merge, buy each other out etc. Corporations don't have 2nd amendment rights, individuals do. Corporations employ individuals which is why the line could be blurred at times, but you just don't have a point, which is why you resort to obfuscation.