Friend posted this on Facebook, and yes it is from Herman Cain's site, but still has some interesting thoughts.

http://www.caintv.com/gays-win-gay-marriage-battle-i

Published by: Robert Laurie on Friday June 26th, 2015
Robert Laurie




Another take.

I'll get this out of the way right up front. A lot of you aren't going to like what I have to say. However, the boss doesn't pay me to tell you what you want to hear - or even what he wants to hear. My job is to offer my opinion. Dan gave you the social conservative reaction here, and my take is going to be substantially different. So here we go:

The Supreme Court got the gay marriage ruling right.

I know, social-cons hate it, but the SCOTUS made the right call under the equal protection clause.

I've written - for years - that the GOP's knee jerk desire to legislate morality has been both a mistake and massive failure. You're either for freedom and individual liberty, or you're not. I'll fight tooth and nail for your right to live your life and raise your families as you see fit, but your absolute right to do so ends when you use those morals to limit the secular rights of others.

It's the difference between acting upon your own personal freedom and forcing your beliefs on everyone else. This, of course, works both ways. So, when a gay couple tries to sue a Christian bakery for refusing to bake a cake, I'll support the bakery - just as I'll support the right of the couple to be a couple. When (not if) LGBT activists and left-wing politicians try to use today's ruling as a springboard for attacks on religious institutions, we'll be having a different conversation. In it, I'll be defending those institutions and their 1st Amendment rights.

However.... As a strictly secular matter, gays have every right to enter into the same legal contracts as everyone else. In the case of marriage in a courtroom, that's precisely what we're talking about: a contract. Nothing more, nothing less. You don't have to like it, support it, or endorse it, but as long as state and federal governments are in the business of offering and acknowledging secular marriage licenses, gays have a right to apply for, and receive, them.

So, under the current system, this is a big win for them.

Unfortunately, today's ruling also expands federal power in a way that does no one - gay or straight - any real good. Gay marriages will now be subject to the same IRS nightmares that the rest of us have endured, while the 10th Amendment has been (to a debatable degree) weakened. Gays won a historic fight, but in the long run they may discover that it was in support of the wrong goal.

They should have been working toward an endgame that lessened state and federal intrusion into everyone's life. The smarter play would have been to advocate elimination of the government's licensing of anyone's marriage.

All of us would be much better off returning marriage to the strictly religious significance it always should have had, while simultaneously implementing a flat or fair tax to eliminate federal financial discrimination. This would increase the separation of church and state, allow gay couples to find a religion that would offer them a spiritual union, and remove the IRS penalties - and benefits - of marriage. Questions about parenting, medical, and inheritance rights could be easily solved through other means and the size, scope, and power of the government would have been limited.

In short, we would treat everyone equally - as free individuals.

What we got today is a ruling that - while in my opinion correct - perpetuates current IRS practices and expands the power of government by subjecting a whole new swath of the population to them. If you really believe in freedom, you shouldn't be arguing for licenses or the limitation of gay rights.

You should be arguing for less federal power and increased liberty for all.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner

Of course there were better alternatives. Right or wrong I believe history played a role. They're human.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Would you give the same understanding to Thomas Jefferson with regards to owning slaves?

_________________

I'M OUT!!!

_________________
You know me like that.

That is damn good. I agree with everything that he said.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

Sinner.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I thought it's legal now?

_________________
You know me like that.

Yes Seacrest. I can strongly disagree with someone and still understand why they did something. We may not be as strong a country as we are now without some of our original sins. God seemed to be okay with slavery too and fortunately most developed countries evolved on this position.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

In the SC one argues for show but briefs for dough. Chris Kluwe and Brendan Ayanbadejo paid for an amicus brief. I would assume they are gay?

http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... 5077268167

_________________
Soccer 1,2,3
Spanish Honor Society 1,2,3,4
Forensics 1,2,3,4

"Smiles with Nostrils"

"...no Hmong, go find some blacks"

We were doing so well...

_________________

Scalia has a little Ditka in him.

Huh. You'd think he'd be more supportive of gay rights then.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Not just any Ditka, Mini-Ditka.

Serious question but where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the authority over marrige?

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Me too. This is really good.

This could turn into a slippery slope. Another friend posted this article on Facebook and I believe it does raise some interesting questions.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illin ... y-law.html

SCOTUS GAY MARRIAGE DECISION MAKES ILLINOIS CONCEAL CARRY LAW ILLEGAL

LGBT

Citing a report by BearingArms.com, Colonel Allen West argues that there's an unintended flip side to the Supreme Court's violation of the U.S. system of federalism. One that will be quite upsetting to the liberal progressives who celebrated yesterday's decision.

As West notes, since the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

BearingArms.com writes: “The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: ...No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here's the kicker -- as the writer at BearingArms.com notes: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends 'certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy' accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are 'shall issue' on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

In other words, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.

As West writes: "Since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country, in all fifty states. Thanks to the LGBT community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state. Not only is it my right to keep and bear my arms (weapons) but that personal choice is central to my individual dignity and autonomy.

Bottom line - the Supreme Court of the United States just solidified the right to keep and bear arms — and made it clear with their decision on marriage that no state - including Illinois - has the “right” to infringe upon another's Second Amendment right. Notes West, "If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!"

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner

Didn't see that coming.

_________________
You know me like that.

The phrase "since the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states" was written by a petulant child.

The rest, however, seemed interesting. It's not the 1:1 comparison it's made out to be, but it's interesting. Right off the bat, a couple of fruits getting married by the state doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property - either potentially or actually. It's not possible to consider a firearm, concealed or not, no threat to infringe on those rights, either potentially or actually.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Fuck it. My new bumper sticker.I hate everyone.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George