Quote:
Quote by: Fangrim  You are correct, Coffee.
The right to bear arms is one of the only rights that is undergoing redefinition, or attempts at redefinition, much to the horror of many conservatives.
Just to speed things up:
Other rights that are being redefined, or have the distinct possibility of doing so are the right to privacy and states rights. States rights, however, has always been under redefinition, and is a continual battleground between the federal government and the states. They did, in fact, fight a war over it (read: the Civil War, the War Between the States; personally, I prefer the Second War of Independence).
The right to privacy is as we speak being bastardized. I don't think I need to elaborate; I'm sure you're aware of how much "privacy" is being redefined, how it's boundaries are growing to incredible realms. It mostly gained speed with Roe v. Wade.
As to the right to bear arms specifically, the government is fully allowed to regulate the right to bear arms. That's quite good, since otherwise, people in a rage could buy a fire arm the day of their anger, or people could own bazookas and machine guns and even heavier weaponry. I seek to protect the government's capability to regulate our rights, as in the case of the right to bear arms. If marriage is redefined, the crisis of rights bastardization will spread to one more area of our lives, and rights bastardization, and corruption of the Equal Protection Clause, will only worsen. |
I am confused. Why is it that the government should be allowed to regulate our right to bear arms, and this is a good thing, but for government to regulate our right to marriage is a bastardization of our rights? According to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; without getting into the specific arguments as to the meaning of that, nowhere does it say that cannons and other artillery -- such as bazookas -- are not covered by that right. This means that for the government to state that the right to bear arms does not include the right to have bazookas is a redefinition of that right -- hence a bastardization, as you have been arguing. If you're saying that we should allow the bastardization of some rights but draw the line at others, then even as an anti-gun advocate I would be much more comfortable with the government regulating my right to marry than my right to bear arms. If you don't see the redefinition of the right to bear arms as a bastardization of our rights, how do you resolve the contradiction?
Quote:
Quote by: Fangrim I've already addressed racial marriage laws. They were unjust. They ignored the definition of marriage for the sake of discriminating against minorities. The definition of marriage allows a man to marry a woman, regardless of race. |
Yes, you have addressed racial marriage laws, but once again you have not answered my question: where in the Constitution, or in any of the fundamental doctrine of our country, is marriage defined necessarily as between one man and one woman? What inalienable individual rights does that definition align with?
Because if the only reason that we define marriage as between one man and one woman is the case law you have cited, then why is that we cannot see that judgement as a bad precedent, as an attempt to discriminate against minorities? Judicial fiat is not equivalent to the will of the people. If the definition of marriage was defined in such an off-handed way, without the acclamation of the citizenry of the United States, then that definition carries no weight -- and its elimination in favor of a more appropriate definition, as determined by the people of the US, is in no way a bastardization of our rights, but merely a bastardization of the opinions of one judge. I am willing to take that step.
Perhaps we should try to formulate a definition of marriage that would allow both of our objections to be resolved: one that allows homosexual marriage, but not dog/rock marriages. I'll start:
Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults who agree to live as a single family unit.
What modifications would you make to that?