Gay Patriot Header Image

Heller Decision: Gay Rights’ Victory

Welcome Instapundit Readers!! — While you are visiting, check out the election news GayPatriot broke earlier this week.

While Ann Althouse finds in yesterday’s Supreme Court Heller decision overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban a victory for women’s righsts (via Instapundit) as the overturned law banned certain guns which are easier for women to use, I see it as significant advance for gay rights victory .

Indeed, I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years, perhaps even more significant than Lawrence v. Texas, the decision overturning sodomy laws. Few states enforced those laws whereas many jurisdictions enforce gun bans. Both these pro-gay rights’ rulings were handed down on June 26, Heller this year, Lawrence in 2003. Given that day’s proximity to the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, we can celebrate all three events during Pride month.

With this ruling, gay people will have greater and more ready access to handguns and so be better able to defend ourselves against gay-bashers. With such a victory for gay rights, I thought I’d check the sites of the various gay organizations to see how they’re celebrating, acknowledging how the constitutional freedom enshrined in the Second Amendment benefits us. Nothing on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) or the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

Silence on such an important victory for gay rights?!?!?

Log Cabin, however, devoted the better part of its homepage to a press release heralding the ruling. At least one gay group gets it. (Note to self: renew Log Cabin membership.) Organization President Patrick Sammon understands how this decision benefits gays:

Unfortunately, too many LGBT Americans still face the threat of anti-gay violence. . . We’re happy the Supreme Court has affirmed the right for us to protect ourselves and our families from harm. Self defense is not a privilege, it’s a right.

Exactly.

Tammy Bruce celebrated the decision on her blog, calling it “good news,” but warning that the 5-4 decision “is far too close for anyone’s comfort.” (Make sure to check out this piece where she builds on her celebration — and her warning.)

In my posts on gun control (here and here), I have set out why Patrick and Tammy are right, that this decision is indedd a cause for celebration.

Dale Carpenter, another gay person who likes the Heller result, has two great pieces on the decision at the Volokh Conspiracy, offering his initial impressions here and commenting on the prospects for originalism in the wake of this ruling here.

I have read a number of insightful blog posts and articles on the decision, but wanted to single out two: Randy Barnett’s Wall Street Journal piece on how the Constitution means what it Says and Glenn Reynold’s New York Post editorial where, like Tammy and I, he expressed delight about the decision but concern about the margin.

The margin may indeed be too close for comfort, but this is a significant victory for gay rights, making it easier for us to protect ourselves in our own communities, a victory indeed for all Americans.

UPDATE: My friend Rick Sincere reminds me that Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) and Pink Pistols, submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of Heller and the Second Amendment. They understand how overturning the ban benefits gays.

Share

72 Comments

  1. Those judicial activists are once again overturning laws made by legislators. And you applaud. Interesting.

    Comment by jimmy — June 27, 2008 @ 9:05 pm - June 27, 2008

  2. Um, Jimmy, read the Second Amendment.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 27, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - June 27, 2008

  3. Yep, Jimmy, that’s exactly right.

    Legislators can pass any law they want… but passing a law does NOT make it constitutional. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

    That is one of the reasons America is a great nation. Other countries just make it up as they go and the citizens usually see their freedoms slowly slip away. We follow in their footsteps at our peril (think Canada’s speech tribunals).

    Too often, the Court fails to overturn a clearly unconstitutional law (McCain-Feingold) and in other cases overturns laws (and lower court rulings) based on “penumbras, emanations, high-energy particles, and secret code words” that the Justices think they see.

    But Scalia is right here: the 2nd Amendment means what it says.

    The 5-4 margin is disturbing and will be a big reason I will cast my vote for McCain. A Gore/Kerry appointment would have doomed the 2nd Amendment (not not done much for the 1st Amendment either).

    Now if we could get CA to pass a “shall issue” concealed-carry law.

    Comment by Robert — June 27, 2008 @ 9:31 pm - June 27, 2008

  4. “The 5-4 margin is disturbing ”

    Because there is no room for dissent? There is no room for differing views on what the Constitution means when it “means what it says”? Because you agree with the 5 so that makes them right and the others a danger? If so then why not just have one judge, the almighty Scalia, then that pesky little issue of differing opinions will be gone. And any semblance of freedom in this country not too long after.

    What makes America great is that there are differing opinions and ways of reading the Constitution and we continue to strive to agree on the right way to run the country. As much as so many of you think that the conservative interpretations (and be honest interpretation is ALL that it is) are the only correct ones, that’s a load of BS and somewhere inside you know that. Freedom in this country is preserved by dissent, preserved by close votes on issue that are NOT settled. Seems like there is a number of advocates of ONE acceptable way of thinking on here – guess what that’s not freedom, that’s not America. Perhaps you can join Mugabe if that’s the way you think a country should be run.

    I don’t think this is a bad decision though since I have lived most of my adult life in neighborhoods where people have guns (legal or not) and don’t hesitate to use them I don’t buy the whole feeling “safer” and more able to stand up for our rights nonsense. A victory for “gay rights”? Flush that, it makes no change in our status as American citizens and doesn’t address any of the issues that we faces in our communities. A victory for those who want to carry a gun, sure. But it’s nothing more than that so only those who fit that category are going to comment on it. Or those who are against it.

    Comment by Dave — June 27, 2008 @ 10:07 pm - June 27, 2008

  5. Comparing someone with a differing opinion with Robert (no relation) Mugabe is like comparing someone to Hitler – silly. It’s probably a waste of time to respond… but I’ve got a minute so…

    The 5-4 decision is disturbing since the Bill of Rights seems pretty basic to me. I can see a 5-4 split when some esoteric legal principle is under review.

    Are you saying that our right to express our opinions hinges on a “close vote”? Subject to the next judicial appointment? That this right is NOT settled?

    If there can be 300 millions ways of reading the Constitution then we’re back to “making it up as we go”.

    Comment by Robert — June 28, 2008 @ 12:44 am - June 28, 2008

  6. Dave, there are many truths in life and you don’t get a gold star when you’re wrong no matter how hard the left tries to obfuscate.

    You defend justuices who spin the law or look to other countries so they can push their ideology as “dissent” and have the audacity to call it “patriotism”. By the same token, you’re defending justices who’ve decided that they’re better suited to run the country than the other two branches. That’s not “dissent” or “patriotism”, that’s oligarchy.

    You can spin it and justify it all you want but, as I always say, no matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.

    As far as Mugabe goes, he’s the type of guy the liberal left loves to fellate. Much like “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Ortega, Castro, Chavez, Asad, Ahmidenjahd etc. There’s no doubt in my mind that Carter et.al. would proclaim his election as the cleanest in history.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2008 @ 12:48 am - June 28, 2008

  7. This is a huge victory!
    Firearms are the great equalizer, not the courts.
    Learn to shoot. Just have to. It’s not hard.
    It’s not something you just know. Study.

    Then you can stop anything that’s ever
    lived.
    Just be sure you want it dead.
    Shooting is the one area of life that has no gray.
    Yes/No, Good/Evil. Make the choice. Be sure.

    If it’s some fool that hates someone gay,
    and is a threat, then it’s over.

    Maybe a little legal cost. Better world.

    Comment by frank — June 28, 2008 @ 12:51 am - June 28, 2008

  8. If there can be 300 millions ways of reading the Constitution then we’re back to “making it up as we go”.

    I was going to say that, but forgot. There would be no point to law enforcement as we could interpret the law any way we wished and dare anybody to challenge our “patriotism”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2008 @ 12:52 am - June 28, 2008

  9. Dave in #4, the margin is disturbing because the Constitution is pretty clear on this one. And the dissenters seem to be at pains to say that the Second Amendment doesn’t say what it says. That’s what’s so disturbing. Indeed, Justice Stevens apparently made numerous factual errors in his dissent (see here and here).

    I welcome dissent, but am troubled by those entrusted to defend our Constitution who have little regard for its actual language. But, maybe it’s the state of legal education in America. When I was in law school, my constitutional law professor, A.E. Dick Howard, spent the entire first week of class going over the Constitution, parsing its every provision.

    Other professors plunged right into the cases without requiring students to read the document itself. One of those professors had clerked for Justice Ginsburg when she was a judge on the D.C. Circuit.

    It’s a gay rights’ victory because as one pundit put it, guns are the great “equalizer,” allowing “the frailest woman could fend off the meanest thug“. Similarly, guns make it easier for gay people to defend ourselves against those who would bash us.

    Anyway, aren’t all the gay leaders bent on making the gay movement about equality?

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 28, 2008 @ 1:24 am - June 28, 2008

  10. first, let me say that i hate the fact that people resort to the second amendment (or any amendment) on the rights to bear arms. It is a flimsy excuse.

    As some of you may know, the constitution also implicitly allowed for slavery for quite some time. If you look at he enumeration clause where representatives are apportioned, slaves are called “other persons” and are counted as 3/5 of a whole person. Does that make the constitution right?

    We are living in far different times. People don’t need to use firearms to kill for food. We have advanced beyond that.

    I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense
    except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns. And other people have guns because they are so easy to get in this country.

    Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense. Hell, if any person tried to get into a gay bar – or any bar – with a gun, security would boot them out.

    Sure, there will always be a black market for guns and some will be available for thugs but dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?

    People dont use guns for hunting anymore (except for the prairies) People use guns to murder and loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder.
    i

    Comment by kojoto — June 28, 2008 @ 2:56 am - June 28, 2008

  11. Oh, Mary! You are too, too much! You’ll shoot yourself in the foot. Isn’t funny how gay bashers are always rabid Conservative Christian Republicans?

    Comment by Pinky Bear — June 28, 2008 @ 5:44 am - June 28, 2008

  12. “…we can celebrate all three events during Pride month.”

    How cute…proud to be a pervert.

    Comment by al-ozarka — June 28, 2008 @ 7:48 am - June 28, 2008

  13. GPW, This – that special significance is attached to your now being more easily able to defend yourself against possible violence who happens to be uttering anti-homo vulgarities, vice being more easily able to defend yourself against possible violence – is a stretch on your part. It is also not different in it’s essence from current efforts at hate crimes legislation – let’s call your idea part of this gooey, proto-judgement-by-majority-or-contrived-consensus, or just call it “hate crimes-lite” to keep it short.

    Or perhaps I am misreading your comments, and when you write “gaybashing” you may mean the entire range of anti-gay remarks – from the snigger of oafish behaviour down to actually fearing for one’s life or property?

    Here are three questions for you, but first the context: a crime scene with a triple murder, one killer, all witnessed by a crowd of people. He shot the first victim and said nothing during the act, shot the second while screaming “you filthy bastard!” and shot the third while screaming “you disgusting queer!” – and now the questions?

    Who of the three is more dead?

    Which of the three died a more horrible death?

    How did you come to deciding the above two questions?

    My take on this? It’s not a “gay rights” victory; that sounds about as intelligent as “affirmative action”.

    This (if you’re still reading this far down, but it’s also why I put my final statement on this issue down at the very bottom, I want to see if you’re really still paying attention, or just dismissing/nodding off at yet another “gay basher”…) is a Human Rights victory. We’re all equal under the law, GPW… do you think abscribing to the “let’s get us defined as a protected minority group” serves that law?

    Comment by Juan — June 28, 2008 @ 8:19 am - June 28, 2008

  14. #10: Nice. You try to equivocate the 2nd Amendment to slavery and murder.

    Who are the real fascists?

    #12: At least we don’t contribute to overpopulation. “People” like you are why every gay man and woman in this country should be armed.

    Comment by Attmay — June 28, 2008 @ 8:30 am - June 28, 2008

  15. 5 to 4 is disturbing. It’s the same ratio by which the SCOTUS determined that the government has the right (contra the takings clause) to confiscate your property and sell it to the highest bidder in the name of the collective social good.

    Dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?

    Sure, they would cut down on the number of law-abiding people carrying guns in the street. The criminal element would be unaffected.

    If you don’t have the means of self-defense, you are dependent on the state for your defense. At that point, you are no longer a citizen, you are a subject.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 9:39 am - June 28, 2008

  16. Uh, kojoto, you might be surprised to learn that slavery was amended out of the constitution and the right to keep and bear arms was amended into the constitution.

    Not only have to defied basic reasoning in your comparison, you have actually made the point against your argument.

    Unwitting or witless, let the reader decide.

    If guns were banned, they would be 100 times more desirable to the “thugs on the street.” The gangsters of the ’30′s robbed police stations to get machine guns. If the poor felons just trying to scrape by got a mandatory 20 years in a no kidding prison for just having a gun during the commission of a felony, it would do 100 more good than any idiotic concept of gun prohibition. But, liberals don’t like cracking down on criminals.

    In fact, I would strongly support sending thugs who use guns to a special reeducation prison that is totally staffed by bleeding heart liberals. Now that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 28, 2008 @ 9:43 am - June 28, 2008

  17. From Volokh:

    The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides. Or perhaps it’s not as remarkable as we’ve been led to think.

    Comment by rightwingprof — June 28, 2008 @ 10:11 am - June 28, 2008

  18. OK, kojoto, if you don’t like the Second Amendment, move to have it repealed. Your point that we are living in different times doesn’t change the plain language of the Constitution.

    Juan in #13, one of the reasons I see this decision as so significant is that I oppose Hate Crimes legislation. I think allowing gay people to use firearms, just like allowing anyone else to use them, is better protection against those who would attack us because of sexual orientation than legislation.

    Massachusetts had Hate Crimes statutes on the book and yet Jacob Robida was able to shoot up a gay bar in New Bedford. That law didn’t stop him, but a well-armed gay man might have.

    Yes, you’re right; this is a Human Rights victory. I’m just noting how it benefits gays.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 28, 2008 @ 11:36 am - June 28, 2008

  19. Thanks for the links about Justice Steven’s dissent. It’s heartwarming to know his work is so shoddy.

    (i.e., scary that his work is shoddy – but heartwarming to know that the State-worshipping anti-gun nuts here have only poor logic on their side)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2008 @ 11:45 am - June 28, 2008

  20. Stevens could do Barack Obama a big favor by stepping down this summer. If Bush got to appoint another justice, it would weaken one of the very few remaining arguments against conservatives sitting out the election.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 11:53 am - June 28, 2008

  21. Stevens should have stepped down in 2001 and showed the class Byron White did. White, a conservative justice, believed that since a Democratic president appointed him, he would wait to retire until a Democrat was in office so a Democrat could appoint his replacement.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 28, 2008 @ 12:03 pm - June 28, 2008

  22. #10 – “Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense.”

    What exactly do you have against us here in Texas, kojo? The fact that we rely on ourselves and not the government to bail us out?

    I have seen many a gay man (and drag queen) check their guns at the door of one of the gay bars here in Houston. Maybe that’s why the hate-crime stats on gays and lesbians are so low here.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 28, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - June 28, 2008

  23. Forget Texas. Ever heard of Pennsylvania? Or Indiana?

    Comment by rightwingprof — June 28, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - June 28, 2008

  24. 1: Interesting take….when the supreme courts of MA and CA, the supporters here (like many conservatives who would be more than happy to simply eradicate the judicial branch of government), sneered and chided these “judicial activists” for simply affirming a right that should be applied equally to all citizens by the equal protection clauses of their constitutions.

    As to the 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.”

    I’ve always found the beginning of that statement very interesting; clearly as it’s read today, it simply means all citizens can bear arms. I wonder, however, if the framers of the constitution simply had an understanding that citizens could bear arms because they could be called up to help defend their state/country as part of the militia? It was certainly a very different time when this was written; the population was overwhelmingly rural; people hunted for food, etc, etc. Perhaps they meant also that if you’re a citizen and you’re going to own you should be a member of your state militia?

    Should the right to bear arms be taken away from law-abiding citizens? absolutely not. Should it be regulated to give authority to stop criminals from owning weapons? absolutely. The legality of background checks has proven this. I have friends who are hunters and members of the NRA. They believe in fully responsible gun ownership and are appalled by the tack the radical factions of their have taken that any and and kinds of weapons would be in the possession of everyone.

    It is important to note that DC will continue to allow limits on guns, like requiring registration of firearms as well as a ban on assault weapons.

    Comment by Kevin — June 28, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - June 28, 2008

  25. I think I can sum this up pretty succinctly:

    If Matthew Shepard had been carrying a gun, he’d be alive today.

    Comment by Draybee — June 28, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - June 28, 2008

  26. Some of Kevin’s “friends” are NRA members? That’s interesting. I didn’t know the NRA gave out memberships to voices in people’s heads.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 1:37 pm - June 28, 2008

  27. The gun-ban challenge filed in San Francisco yesterday has a gay plaintiff.

    Comment by David — June 28, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - June 28, 2008

  28. TGC you spend a lot of time talking about sexual acts committed by the left. Either you seriously need to get laid or you need to start attending sex addict support groups. As far as you claims about Mugabe – more ooze from the vast swamp of hateful excrement that is your brain. If you are going to respond to me at least respond to what I said and if you’re going to make claims about what I believe you had best have evidence to support it. I did NOT defend the opposing judges, I defended the concept of dissent and I criticized the belief that I see often on here that there is only one correct way to think and that is “conservative”. What you are babbling about when you say they think they are better suited to run the country than the other branches is laughable in the face of the fact that you support an administration that has at every opportunity attempted to bypass all the checks and balances and to act only on the opinion of the twisted little boy currently playing president. Perhaps you can show me an example of when I supported judicial excess.

    GPW – I fully understood your point about this decision, all I was saying in response to that was I don’t totally agree. I actually think that the decision was correct whether I agree with gun ownership or not. Regulation is absolutely necessary, banning is useless.

    The simple fact is that the written word is always subject to the interpretation of the reader. The Constitution is no different. It was written in a different world than today. If it is not read and applied in the context of life in the US now then the principals in it will be lost. One look at those who believe in a literal reading of the Bible highlights that – many have lost the concepts that Jesus taught because they get wrapped up in law and blind worship of the words, not what the words say and what they mean for us in a totally different culture.

    Stevens stepping down and allowing this foul administration to choose another to take his place would be one of the worst things that could happen to this country. The would-be king of America has done enough damage. The courts must represent differing viewpoints or they become a weapon to be used against millions of citizens.

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - June 28, 2008

  29. Two things while reading comments:

    The first gun laws in this country were imposed to keep blacks from owning them. i.e. keep them from protecting themselves. The right to self defense is a basic human right and as fundamental and important as an other (and more important of a minority group, living among a hostile/indifferent majority).

    The 3/5 clause was placed in the Constitution by the FREE states, to prevent the slave holding states from gaining too much power in the Congress, it is the fundamental reason why slave holding states power in Congress weakened as time passed. To argue that it was a bad thing is shortsighted, as if slaves had been counted as full people the practice of slavery would have probably lasted another two or three decades. The quickest way to have ended slavery from a legislative point of view would have been for the slaves to have not counted at all for the sake of representation. This would have sped the process of emancipation, as it would have benefited the slave holding states. To sum it up: The great mistake in the Constitution isn’t that slaves didn’t count as full people, but that they counted at all.

    Comment by John — June 28, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - June 28, 2008

  30. An Open Letter to Those Who Wonder Why Citizens Would Want to Carry Guns in Public

    http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public

    Comment by Jack Burton — June 28, 2008 @ 2:06 pm - June 28, 2008

  31. [...] to keep and bear arms is, indeed, an individual Constitutional (and human) right–is also a victory for gay rights. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]

    Pingback by Heller Decision A Gay Rights Victory — Dean’s World — June 28, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - June 28, 2008

  32. Dave (#28)SAY WHAT?

    The courts must represent differing viewpoints or they become a weapon to be used against millions of citizens.

    You MUST be kidding. The courts must rule ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW. Period.

    Since when did our schools start teaching that the American judicial system is some kind of identity politics affirmative action system?

    WTF!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 28, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - June 28, 2008

  33. [...] THE HELLER DECISION: A victory for gay rights. [...]

    Pingback by ZEITGEIST — June 28, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - June 28, 2008

  34. #10 “I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns.”

    It’s already been said, but Matthew Shepherd wasn’t killed by a gun. In fact, most violence against gays isn’t committed with guns. But a gun can protect you from any kind of violence.

    Comment by Matt — June 28, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - June 28, 2008

  35. While I support gun ownership, I honestly don’t think a limp wrist and a loaded weapon exactly go together.

    Comment by Kyle24 — June 28, 2008 @ 2:26 pm - June 28, 2008

  36. There is a lot of muddled thinking here, but the thrust of the decision is that is a victory for ALL law-abiding citizens. And, for gay and lesbians, it is a great equalizer. I too oppose “hate” crimes legislation. Yes, it may be well meaning, but ask Mark Steyn how perverted it can get. The margin of the decision makes it imparative to elect Sen. John “F— You” McCain to the presidency. One or more of the liberal justices may retire and, God forbid, die in office. This is how we can get away from narrow decisions. BTW, isin’t Antonin Scalia one of the most brilliant minds in the United States?

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — June 28, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - June 28, 2008

  37. Dave Said: “It was written in a different world than today. If it is not read and applied in the context of life in the US now then the principals in it will be lost.”

    No, the principals will only be lost if the Constitution is not read in the context in which it was written. It is your idea of a “Living Constitution” that will lead to the corruption/destruction of our rights.

    Dave said: “The courts must represent differing viewpoints or they become a weapon to be used against millions of citizens.”

    No, it is the Legislative branch that represents differing viewpoints. It is the courts’ job to determine if legislation resulting from those viewpoints violates the constitution. That is our protection against the whims of the majority.

    [GP Ed. Note - EXACTLY RIGHT, Hoth! It is quite frightening how ignorant this generation of Americans (including my own) is about the FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENT that governs this nation. There should be one whole course on the philosophy and development of the US Constitution required in every high school and college. It is a disgrace that Dave honestly thinks he is right.]

    Comment by Hoth — June 28, 2008 @ 2:46 pm - June 28, 2008

  38. The 3/5 clause was placed in the Constitution by the FREE states, to prevent the slave holding states from gaining too much power in the Congress

    Liberals are phenomenally ignorant of history, which is why they get away with labeling the 3/5ths compromise as racist. It is anything but.

    As for Dave and his ilk, if they don’t like the language in the Constitution, there is a process to change it. You amend the document through the Congress and the states. Once the Constitution means nothing except what a judge wants it to… as Dave and his ilk would prefer… it no longer means anything at all. And we are back to living in a dictatorship.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - June 28, 2008

  39. #35: Kyle, limp wrist or not, I’m a pretty good shot… I’ve burned a lot of ammo at the range and hit what I’m aiming at.

    #29: John, thanks for making that point. It’s been my understanding as well that the 3/5 compromise was made to dilute slave-state votes in Congress. Funny how politicians trot this out to condemn us as intrinsically racist.

    Hoth – excellent points all.

    It’s interesting to me (as a non-believer) how so many people condemn Christians for “interpreting the Bible to suit their own beliefs and prejudices” yet have no problem “interpreting the Constitution to suit their own beliefs and prejudices”.

    Jonah G. has a great column about how the Congress and President are shirking their duty to protect and defend the Constitution:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWFlNjg0NTA2MzVjOWQyNTkwN2EyYmMwYWQwYmVhMGM=

    Comment by Robert — June 28, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - June 28, 2008

  40. So Bruce and Hoth, if the viewpoints of the judges don’t matter than why the uproar over liberals v conservatives. Why not just throw the names of all the judges in the country and pull one out of a hat, it would save a lot of trouble and stress. Every single person will be influenced by their political views. There is no way humanly possible not to be. Yes they must “rule ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW. Period.” But that will be subject to the way they think. Period. You can try to make false claims that the “conservatives” that Bush appointed are unbiased and they judge using strictly the Constitution but you are simply lying to yourselves. If they weren’t biased to the right they would never have been appointed by him and you would never support them. Both parties want the courts to be stacked with people who think like they do. That is so ridiculously obvious. I’m not saying it’s right but it’s absolutely true.

    What’s a disgrace Bruce is that many of you are in total denial of reality. It’s beyond stupid to say that the Constitution should be read in the context in which it was written. NONE OF US were there, we don’t live in the same environment, we don’t face the same obstacles, we don’t have the same threats to our freedom. And thank God we don’t, there were customs and traditions and attitudes that were hideous and cruel to large portions of people then (certainly there are now also, just different ones.) If the founding documents are not living documents, then they are dead and totally meaningless. Are you going to say that “pursuit of happiness” doesn’t have different implications now than it did then? Bruce says included in that is turning your thermostat up to 70 degrees. I’m sure that the founding fathers had that in mind. “Right to bear arms” – when that was written do you think they had in mind automatic guns, land mines, hand grenades etc? Yet, the courts have had to decide where to draw the line on what a private citizen can own. Is that an infringement of rights? Should we be able to possess and use any weapon ever created? I won’t even get into religion and gov’t. Well, maybe a little. Most of us agree that religious institutions should be free from gov’t interference. For some that means Christian but when it comes to Islam, or native religions that use substances that have been declared illegal or religions that practice polygamy, all of a sudden it’s ok. So, which is it, what did the founders mean, did they imagine that this country would be anything but Christian, did they account for changes in the population through immigration?

    If the founding documents are not living then no amendments should ever have been allowed. They were complete as written and must be followed exactly – in the context they were written. Amendments make changes, amendments are often initiated by the changing attitudes of the citizens of this country. But you say that is wrong, it says what it says, deal with it.

    You say that a judge’s decision is correct and abiding by the Constitution when it is something you agree with. When you don’t agree with it, the liberals are exceeding their limits, ignoring the Constitution, allowing outside influences and all the other nonsense that floats around the blogsphere. In effect what you are saying is that conservative judges are perfect, unable to make mistakes, possibly even divine and only they have the knowledge of exactly what the founders meant when they created these documents. And on top of that, all your opinions and analyses are correct 100% of the time and anyone who questions or disagrees is ignorant, biased, a threat to freedom blah blah blah. That anyone can be that deluded is pitiful.

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2008 @ 4:20 pm - June 28, 2008

  41. Sorry V the K, never said it. Amazing how a reader can misinterpret what the writer meant, isn’t it?

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2008 @ 4:26 pm - June 28, 2008

  42. Dave said: “It’s beyond stupid to say that the Constitution should be read in the context in which it was written. NONE OF US were there, we don’t live in the same environment, we don’t face the same obstacles, we don’t have the same threats to our freedom.”

    If we don’t read it in the context it was written the Constitution in meaningless and worth no more than exceedingly rough toilet paper. You are correct to say that none of us were there, and didn’t go through the same experiences as the Founders. Fortunately though, we have books. Books written by the Founders and their contemporaries that allow us to understand their experiences and their thinking and the debates they went through in writing the Constitution. Just because you are ignorant of these valuable sources of information and history doesn’t mean that the rest of us are.

    Dave said: “If the founding documents are not living then no amendments should ever have been allowed. They were complete as written and must be followed exactly – in the context they were written. Amendments make changes, amendments are often initiated by the changing attitudes of the citizens of this country. But you say that is wrong, it says what it says, deal with it.”

    The Constitution is carved in stone. That said however, the Founders (in their great wisdom) left a large blank area at the bottom of that stone. And the Founders also (again in their great wisdom) wrote into the Constitution the means by which it could be amended (approval by 3/4 of the States, 2/3 of each house of Congress, and the President). This fact renders null your contention that the Constitution couldn’t be amended. You are correct that amendments are often initiated based upon the changing attitudes of the citizens, but the Constitution is amended via the method layed out in the Constitution itself, by way of judicial fiat.

    Dave said: “You say that a judge’s decision is correct and abiding by the Constitution when it is something you agree with. When you don’t agree with it, the liberals are exceeding their limits, ignoring the Constitution, allowing outside influences…”

    If a judge’s (con or lib) decision is based upon anything (polling data, modern European norms, etc.) outside of the Constitution, commentaries upon the Constitution or previous case law it can neither be correct nor abiding as it has been irreparably tainted. It is a simple fact that though both sides are guilty, liberal judges are more likely than conservative judges to violate this tenant.

    Comment by Hoth — June 28, 2008 @ 4:56 pm - June 28, 2008

  43. …the Constitution is amended via the method layed out in the Constitution itself, by way of judicial fiat.

    Sorry, that should read… NOT by way of judicial fiat.

    Comment by Hoth — June 28, 2008 @ 5:00 pm - June 28, 2008

  44. Dave, our Constitution has provided mankind with the longest continuous government in the history of the world. (You may now call me an idiot and bring up Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, etc. But you would be d.e.a.d w.r.o.n.g.)

    The Senate of the United States has been in continuous session since 1789 and in spite of assassinated presidents, a civil war, Jerry Ford’s pathway to the presidency, we have never stumbled as a continuous government and suspended the Constitution.

    You want the Constitution to be mushy and all embracing of every little societal whim. But the fact remains that it is the framework of our government and it dictates how we the people run our country. It is difficult to amend the Constitution, but it can be done. Once, a goofy amendment about banning booze got in there. Constitutions should not contain mandates that can not be enforced, like banning drugs or guns or hate.

    Liberal judges have a way of reading between the lines and finding rights emanating from the penumbra of other rights and seeing “privacy” in the Constitution. Conservative judges might look for “privacy” in the Constitution and then discover it is clearly not there. So, the conservative judge says: “It’s not in the Constitution, you will just have to amend the Constitution and put it there.”

    Liberals don’t like that messy way of doing things. They want their judges to be super activists who will do an end run around the legislatures and the people. After all, most liberals do not really trust the people. If they did, they wouldn’t be trying to thrust the government into people’s lives all the time.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 28, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - June 28, 2008

  45. On the somewhat related subject of full faith and credit granted by states to the licenses issued by other states, Texas does not recognize a marriage license granted to a same sex couple in Massachusetts or California and neither of those states recognize my Texas issued Concealed Handgun License.

    Perhaps if “full faith and credit” were a more widely applied principal there would be more political support for it.

    Comment by Mark in Texas — June 28, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - June 28, 2008

  46. “You want the Constitution to be mushy and all embracing of every little societal whim.”

    I do? That’s news to me. I guess that’s why I come here so I can be told what I really believe and think and say. Gosh, I owe you folks a debt of gratitude.

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2008 @ 5:48 pm - June 28, 2008

  47. Actually, Dave, when you argue about a “living Constitution” whose meaning can be arbitrarily altered by any plurality of judges who must have it “read and applied in the context of life in the US now” (context of life meaning opinion polls, NY Slimes editiorials, and the bias of the liberal media) … you abandon the Constitutionally proscribed amendment process and subject our God-given freedoms to the whims of judges. At that point, we are no longer living in a Constitutional monarchy, but in a judicial dictatorship.

    Another commenter has commented that an activist court acts as a Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss on the whole process of government. If you’ve ever had a boss that micro-managed your work, you know that after a while, you stop giving a crap because you know the PBH is just going to change or undo anything you accomplish. That’s the effect an activist court has on the legislature. Legislators are handicapped when they know their legislation is subject to activist judges who will always find some reading “in the context of life in the US now” that will allow them to overturn legislation in favor of the judge’s personal view of the desirable outcome.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - June 28, 2008

  48. #24 – Kevin – All of what you discuss is in the Heller decision. Read the decision.

    Here is the Cliffs’ notes version. Certain rights, Kevin and you other “liberals”, do not come from government. They come from GOD. (Remember your Declaration of Independence?) The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, merely codifies or notices a PRE-EXISTING right. A pre-existing right to defend yourself and bear arms. “Pre” meaning, a right BEFORE government comes in the picture; a right that exists regardless of what government has to say about it, but that good government will then recognize. The introductory clause to the amendment, “A well-regulated militia…”, is but hyperbole or extra justification intended to make it more obvious than ever how utterly wrong it would be to deny people the right to bear arms.

    Should the right to bear arms be taken away from law-abiding citizens? absolutely not.

    But why not? Or, in what sense “absolutely”? Your statement makes no sense, Kevin, unless it is true that the right to bear arms is in fact ABSOLUTE and PRE-EXISTING – as is now held by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2008 @ 6:04 pm - June 28, 2008

  49. Does anyone really buy the left-liberal, “We don’t want to confiscate guns, just regulate them” spin? Looking at what the liberal left tried to pass in Pennsylvania… a set of regulations for gun-owners that raised the bar so high very, very few people would have been able to keep guns … is it not fair to say that regulation is just confiscation by another name?

    Canada did something similar… onerous regulations on the possession of firearms. This has had the same affect on the right to bear arms as Canada’s Human Rights Commissions have had on the right to free speech. The authoritarian busy-body bureaucrats who populate the offices of government don’t really want anyone to have either. Which is why we need strict Constitutional restraints on the voracious appetite of petty tyrants toward social control.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 6:17 pm - June 28, 2008

  50. The left-liberal’s aim is to gut people’s independence; to make everyone as dependent as possible on the State, whose power the left-liberal worships and hopes to be in charge of. Fascists all.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2008 @ 6:22 pm - June 28, 2008

  51. The “Well Regulated Militia” is to be regulated how?
    To prevent tyrany, the founders made damn sure the populace would always be able to prevent it by force if need be.
    The Liberal Left, which is currently decrying certain percieved loss of rights under “The Evil GW Bush” would just love to see this Right removed, forever leaving Themselves open to permanent loss of all rights.
    Cliche it may be, but the Second really is the protector of the other nine.
    The Bill Of Rights was amended onto the Constitution to ensure forever what the founders first thought obvious. But some people would circumvent that which they though obvious, and even after writing the obvious down, FOUR(4) Justices decided “The Right Of The People” does not mean “The People”. . .Us. . you and me. If it did not (thanks to Kennedy getting this one correct), then what about the First? The Fourth? The Fifth?
    What about those that never mention “The People”?

    So, without this Right, just this question to the “Living Document” supporters:
    How do you intend to keep any Rights if you are willing to give up that which allows you to protect those Rights?

    Comment by JP — June 28, 2008 @ 6:53 pm - June 28, 2008

  52. How do you intend to keep any Rights if you are willing to give up that which allows you to protect those Rights?

    There’s a group of people who would gladly swap all their rights for “free” health care and/or a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy validating their same-sex living arrangement as a marriage.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - June 28, 2008

  53. #40 Dave claims to be misunderstood by certain (me) readers here. Here is a random quote from his post:

    Every single person (person=judge in this construct) will be influenced by their political views. There is no way humanly possible not to be. Yes they must “rule ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW. Period.” But that will be subject to the way they think. Period.

    My reading of this is that Dave is telling us that judges must rule on the Constitution and the law, but they will rule according to their political views. He emphasizes the point by writing the one word sentence: “Period.”

    Dave scolds Bruce that:

    It’s beyond stupid to say that the Constitution should be read in the context in which it was written.

    Let’s forget that you must be beyond stupid if you disagree with this definitive statement.

    Perhaps some folks do not understand what the word “context” means. The Constitution can not be read in any other way than in the context in which it was written.

    I will not put words in Dave’s mouth, but perhaps there is some confusion here over the age old debate of “original intent.” There are some weasel words in the Constitution such as “due process” and “cruel and unusual” and “good behavior” and “probable cause.” They continue to cause debate and context is not really helpful, so there is a reason to examine “original intent.”

    The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about “the pursuit of happiness” and it makes no mention of our economic system. But, am I to believe that if 9 Communists get appointed to the Supreme Court that they get to rule according to their extreme socialist political whims?

    Enough of this. I have been overexposed to pseudo-intellectualism in underthinking and misunderstanding the brilliance of our Constitutional form of government and the ingenious checks and balances that have allowed us to pretty much ignore it.

    As Franklin reportedly said when asked what kind of government had been created: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    Judges ruling on the basis of political bias is sure death to our republic.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 28, 2008 @ 7:09 pm - June 28, 2008

  54. [...] Heller Decision: Gay Rights’ Victory [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Man Challenges San Francisco Gun Ban — June 28, 2008 @ 7:18 pm - June 28, 2008

  55. #18 – “… allowing gay people to use firearms, just like allowing anyone else to use them… ” is a straw man; there are no laws that I know of preventing a person from having a firearm where the reason provided is due to his sexual practices. I may be wrong on this as I haven’t reviewed/researched it, but if you can point out to me a law that says otherwise, please do.

    I’m against group politics, that much should be clear from my limited comments here. As for whatever reason my would-be assaulter would have or not as he approaches in his attack, I really don’t give a s@*t what it is… The absolute truth is that I’m tappin’ that sumb%&th twice in center mass, then putting a security round in his eye socket – and the issue of where I choose to stick my virile member has absolutely nothing to do with that truth.

    Comment by Juan — June 28, 2008 @ 8:06 pm - June 28, 2008

  56. Juan #55, if you take a gander at this blog, you’ll see that we too are against group politics. I call heller a victory for gay rights because it has particular benefits for gay people. Even if it doesn’t offer spell out protections for us as a group, it benefits us as individuals.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 28, 2008 @ 8:27 pm - June 28, 2008

  57. “9 Communists get appointed to the Supreme Court that they get to rule according to their extreme socialist political whims”

    If 9 Communists got appointed that would likely mean that the President support communism and enough of the legislatore do also in order to confirm them. In that case I would say that the Constitution has probably already been given up as a guide to how to run the country.

    I am not advocating judges ruling based on their political beliefs I am saying that it is virtually impossible for them not to. And I ask again, if political beliefs don’t enter into it then the best person for the job should be nominated no matter where they stand on the political spectrum. How often has that happened in the history of this country? Bush chose people that would appease his conservative base and every other President who had the chance to nominate someone has done the same, in my opinion. I welcome any examples (true ones) that will prove me wrong.

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2008 @ 11:14 pm - June 28, 2008

  58. Dave,

    The Constitution is a legal contract. Nothing more, nothing less. The only reason we exist as a country is because our forebearers hammered out a contract that the states could agree on. Have you ever heard of a “living, breathing” mortgage or business contract where the parties can just change how they “interpret” the contract? No, of course not. Legal contracts don’t work that way.

    Words have meanings. The constitution is very clearly written and requires almost zero “interpretation”, it requires only application. And when the Constitution does require interpretation, it is very easy, through the writings of our Founders such as the Federalist papers, etc, to figure out precisely what they meant.

    IF circumstances arise where we think modern life necessitates a changes to the constitution, then the constitution has an amendment process for changing it. Changing the Constitution by the Amendment process is the ONLY way we can change the meaning and still call ourselves a representative democracy. What liberal justices love to do is circumvent that amendment process and substitute their own policy preferences for that of the elected branches. Which is, of course, is tyranny, antithetical to everything this government of the people, by the people, and for the people stands for.

    If any of the founders suspected that a group of unelected elites would change the contract they all worked so hard to make agreeable to all the states with the stroke of a pen, they never would have ratified it.

    A “living breathing” Constitution would be just as ridiculous as a lving breathing business contract. It would be meaningless. It would mean only what the people in power want it to mean. Which is precisely why liberals love the concept. It allows them to force their policy on a public that won’t approve it at the ballot box. Conservatives understand that if we are to remain a free country, if we are to remain self-goverened, the constitution must mean exactly what it says, and must ONLY be changed by the people and their elected representatives.

    If so then why not just have one judge, the almighty Scalia,

    That would be HOT since he is one of the four justices who understand that the PEOPLE make the laws, the PEOPLE agreed to the Contitution, and the PEOPLE, not judges, are the only ones who can change it. And if you would read your constitution, you’d also find it would be entirely Constitutional. The Constitution calls for a Supreme Court, it leaves the number of justices, as well as the number and make up of lower courts, to the congress.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 28, 2008 @ 11:38 pm - June 28, 2008

  59. Dave said: “Bush chose people that would appease his conservative base and every other President who had the chance to nominate someone has done the same, in my opinion. I welcome any examples (true ones) that will prove me wrong.”

    Ford (R) –> Justice Stevens (1975)
    Reagan (R) –> Justices O’Connor (1981) and Kennedy (1988)
    G.H.W. Bush (R) –> Justice Souter (1990)

    That’s two of the current big libs and the swing vote, his Imperial Majesty Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, all nominated by Republicans.

    With a minimal amount of research you are once again proven wrong Dave.

    The people who should be nominated to the courts are those noble enough to acknowledge their beliefs and honest enough to recognize when the plain language of the Constitution does not support those beliefs and rule accordingly. More often than not it is the conservative Justices that fit this mold. The ones who will dig desperately for to find support for their own personal biases within “penumbras of emanations” are the ones to be avoided, whether they come from the left or the right, although they are more often of the left.

    Comment by Hoth — June 29, 2008 @ 1:57 am - June 29, 2008

  60. Also Dave, you ought to be careful what you wish for. If the Constitution is really to be the malleable document you seem to favor, and its meaning dependent on the balance of bias on the court, remember that America is still very much a center-right nation. As Hoth touched upon, seven of the nine Justices have been appointed by Republicans. Five of the last seven presidents have been Republicans and Americans, according to polls, prefer conservative justices. If Oligarchy is what you want, keep in mind it would most likely be a conservative oligarchy for, probably the rest of your lifetime at least.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 29, 2008 @ 6:38 am - June 29, 2008

  61. 26: Thanks for keeping the level of debate up to such high standards, you moron

    Comment by Kevin — June 29, 2008 @ 8:58 am - June 29, 2008

  62. Hoth, thanks for the info. Yes I could have found it but I know that many on here are better students of history than I and could answer it quickly.

    “The constitution is very clearly written and requires almost zero “interpretation”, it requires only application”

    Exactly AE, I have misused the word interpret in place of apply. To me that application must be tempered by modern circumstance. On the topic of guns, I don’t see how one can advocate total freedom to own any weapon that exists but if you’re going to focus on 5 words “the right to bear arms” there’s little argument.

    You love Scalia, fine. I think he’s one of the judges who has made it HARDER for “the people” to get justice in this country. Who has put the “rights” of corporations ahead of the people and other things. Of course I have to be honest my distaste of him probably comes more from the fact that every word I have ever seen him utter has made me want to slap the smarmy bitch silly.

    Anyway, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me and most of you have stated your case quite well. I think we are closer than it seems but the way I write things doesn’t always clearly state what I’m thinking. Whatever, I agree that the Constitution has stood the test of time and will always need to be the basis of our gov’t for the USA to survive. I get my back up when folks say how conservatives are better at sticking to the original concepts when it is a conservative administration that has and will continue until the last day to try and bypass the checks and balances that exist. I think “the people” need to pay a lot more attention to who the are voting into office or the day will come when the Constitution and the justice system will be only a fond memory. And that threat comes from both side.

    Comment by Dave — June 29, 2008 @ 12:48 pm - June 29, 2008

  63. Dave,

    The “strict constructionist” (conservative) justice finds the basis of his rulings in the Constitution and his written opinion spells out how he reached his conclusion, based on the Constitution.

    The “loose constructionist” (liberal) justice finds “guidance” in the Constitution or even the laws and customs of other lands to reach his desired conclusion.

    The Congress writes the laws. The people can make themselves heard. The Constitution can be amended. These are the tools of a true republic. The legislature writes the laws, the executive carries out and enforces the laws. The Judiciary settles disputes arising under the laws. It is a fairly simple concept. Except, liberals are more and more depending on the courts to create law.

    Too many liberals are looking at the courts as a short cut around the obligation of making your case and getting the people behind you in a free and open system of representative government. The extent to which liberals are ignorant of the harm they are doing to the system of republican government is alarming.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 29, 2008 @ 6:16 pm - June 29, 2008

  64. I don’t see how one can advocate total freedom to own any weapon that exists but if you’re going to focus on 5 words “the right to bear arms” there’s little argument.

    No one is arguing that anyone has the right to nuclear arms, only that the government cannot disarm the people altogether.

    You love Scalia, fine. I think he’s one of the judges who has made it HARDER for “the people” to get justice in this country. Who has put the “rights” of corporations ahead of the people and other things.

    I do love Scalia, although I prefer Roberts. Nonetheless, if I may be so bold, I suspect you think Scalia has made it “harder for ‘the people’ to get justice” because you have a skewed idea of what justice is. Justice is not favoring the little guy over the big guy. Justice is not favoring whichever side pulls at your heartstrings more. Justice is applying the law as it is written. And like it or not, often the law is on the side of “big, evil,” corporations. And when it is, Justice requires finding in their favor. If the law is wrong, change the law — but change it democratically. If you empower unelected judges to change the law because they don’t agree that the law as written is just, then you cease to live in freedom.

    I get my back up when folks say how conservatives are better at sticking to the original concepts when it is a conservative administration that has and will continue until the last day to try and bypass the checks and balances that exist.

    I’m sorry, but thats simply not true. You are being misled by Democrats who want want you to believe that because they desperately want to get back in power. And here is the proof:

    1. In every single instance, the administration has complied with all court rulings, even when they disagreed with them. That is not bypassing checks and balances, that is yielding to them.

    2. Are you aware (I am willing to bet you are not) that in the recent ruling on illegal enemy detainees, that the Bush administration’s policy was following long-settled Supreme Court precedent? A precedent that the liberals on the court had to overturn in order to reach their outrageous decision? What happened to all that talk about the importance of stare decisis(let the decision stand)??? In both Roberts and Alito’s confirmation hearings we were ceaselessly battered with the proclamation that precedent must never be overturned, especially “super” or long-standing precedent. And yet the Bush administration has been smeared as disobeying the law, and, as you say, of trying to bypass checks and balances. And yet here they are, complying with a decision that they disagree with and that overturns long held precedent.

    3) and finally, are you aware that the President’s sole powers as Commander in Chief are bestowed by the Constitution, and that Congress can no more take away his powers in this area by writing a law, than he could take away their constitutionally mandated powers by writing an executive order. And yet Democrats have been doing exactly that/ It is Democrats that have been trying to usurp powers that the Constitution grants to the executive.

    You have a very misinformed and erroneous opinion of the power-plays that have been taking place and who it is that has been behaving extra-constitutionally.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 29, 2008 @ 11:43 pm - June 29, 2008

  65. Kevin, as a MA resident and a straight man welcoming gay marriage, I find it disgusting and a comment on the modern American legislative system that the Supreme Judicial Court here had to legalize gay marriage, while the douchebag “Progressives” in the Legislature (85% Democrat here) didn’t have the courage to stand on their alleged principles.

    Comment by Brutus — June 30, 2008 @ 12:58 pm - June 30, 2008

  66. I’ve been saying for years that gun-rights advocates should have been focusing on groups most likely to be victimized as being excellent candidates for handgun ownership.

    Comment by Roderick Reilly — June 30, 2008 @ 5:50 pm - June 30, 2008

  67. [...] to a pair of blog posts lionizing Antonin Scalia as a champion of women’s rights and gay rights in virtue of his Heller decision. Inasmuch as the right to own a gun not only trumps every other [...]

    Pingback by The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » Glibertarians! — July 1, 2008 @ 10:54 am - July 1, 2008

  68. modern war guns…

    Do you have a newsletter to sign up to?…

    Trackback by modern war guns — July 12, 2008 @ 5:09 pm - July 12, 2008

  69. hi iam from palestin / gaza … and iam sure you know whats going on in gaza .. my name is M.H.M.A
    iam gay and living in country like this mean alot and i know you understand what i mean .. i didnt want to till you that iam look like Beggars and i need any Straw to Hold it or some one to safe me all i want is some one to hear me .. is it you !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by m — August 6, 2008 @ 5:20 pm - August 6, 2008

  70. [...] Just under a year ago, we contended the that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision was a gay rights’ victory:  “With this ruling, gay people will have greater and more ready access to handguns and so [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Concelead Carry Laws Further Gay Rights — June 10, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - June 10, 2009

  71. Can you explain law of slavery? Jesus said to be a good slave in Mathew? Why,is it wrong if it was okay by Jesus word of scripture? How come I can’t have many wives like old testament? Im lost can you help me understand scripture? Old Testament or God Laws were updated by Jesus New Law? Why, is wrong to be gay? Old Law? Jesus said, Love all man unconditional? Why, is it wrong for gay’s to marry. Old Law of God? New law of Jesus unconditionaly? Is this not double jepardy? We don’t do it today’s law, except with Gay people?Is this not double jepardy? A Double standard? I dont get it. I guess this is why so many say it contradicts! We say Love equal than say you can’t get Married? Justify with old law when Jesus said, Love all man and old testament says love all man? If, so can I use it in Law today? Sounds good to me.I can have slaves? Updated law dont mean anything? We can still use old laws and new laws? What is Human Right. Is this not to be equal.What is unconditional then.I looked in dictionary and says without conditions. Is this not double jepordy? To say I love you unconditionally,except if your Gay.What about Gay Christians that dont want to sin by Adultry. We say we love them equal with limitations.Then use old scripture or Laws and say No? How is this fair? I’m lost? If we just got rid of Old Testament it wouldn’t be confusing? Like our old Laws.We no longer use Old laws with new. Old Law of God,One Book.Law of Jesus another Book of laws. Do you see where I’m going. If a man stole a cow we used to hang them. Why not today? You do it in the Bible, it must be okay for us today? We can just make laws to fit us? So if I have many wives I can Justify with Old Laws like Old Testament. Why keep old law if new ones take its place? Thus old test. law and new test. law. Jesus said, Unconditionaly.And also said Meant to be between Man and Woman. Can I justify having two wives by old law? What does word Meant mean. I looked in dictionary it say Soposed to be. So I can have many still? Meant in law mean today. Did it change of something? Meant, man and woman. Does it say not man and man? Where is the limitations on it. Surely not in old law?Updated law of today dont allow that.Why would God make it differant, Is he not fair?Does he love one more than the other? Jesus said under no condition and we say yes we are then no you cant. What is that? Two most important Commandments,Mathew said Jesus Updated the Law and we use old law of God. No wonder people say, It contradict. Do you see where Im going. How is a lesser law hight than More important law. I know the truth! I just wanted you to see it. You would do better without old law of Moses, Just used Jesus New Testament Law. To use both wouldn’t stand up in court. Unless Prejudiced? Do you catch my meaning.We do it to Gays and then use old law to justify over new law. You Guy don’t even see it.Blind and now do you see!!I have been trying to tell people won’t but won’t listen? I just hear justification of old law of Moses.So Moses law more importand than New updated law?Im trying to tell the world something and get blown off. I know I had been going around it wrong.I just don’t know what God’s meaning is behind it.Something Im positive of. God gave me the gift of scripture yet I did not know how to tell anyone without thinking I’m crazy. I hope this one get’s taken seriously. I know without a dought what I’m soposed to do but don’t know how to tell ya.This is my best bet to use parable as Jesus to get point across without putting up a wall. I was blind and now I see. I was a Christian for long time to. I’d thought someone was crazy if opposite situation. Can’t blame them plus it is for some reason. God only know though.I will see soon. I’m trying to tell them he’s comming. Like a thier in the night. Lot shorter than you think. More like now.This is the Alpha of omega. I know you think, huh? He wants you to be ready. Think 2012 calendars stop. You think ah,maybe. I say no for sure. If you knew what I do you’d go nuts as anyone else in my shoe. He hints then I wait then bang out of know where I just jump and as high as I can. He is real. You know he’s real. Forget the old Testament. Like old law of society.Read word for word in bible truth of scripture only new law not moses’s. Read Mathew at least. Then read Rev. the same way. No more contradiction and you will see his comming. Pleas try it he does love you.Believe in him you shall not parrish but have eternal life.If you don’t catch on to this message you safe. Wouldn’t like a little less burden. “Justice is mine says”, The Lord. I can maybe help you if you missed the meaning.It is for reason all is for reason. God’s Ordained Rev. Parker 3

    Comment by charles — January 28, 2010 @ 9:17 am - January 28, 2010

  72. [...] bit of news for gay Americans since the Supreme Court handed down the Lawrence decision (though the Heller decision making it easier for us to defend ourselves against gay bashers was also pretty [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Are Barney’s Days Numbered? — January 28, 2010 @ 4:18 pm - January 28, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.