Woollard: Petition For Rehearing En Banc Denied.

[nobis1]

This is a good discussion, one the Republican Party needs to have. Freedom sells, it just does. When both sides sell (or are perceived to sell) more restrictions on your freedom/liberty, then we see what happens.

As much as Republicans hate to hear it, the Ron Paul phenomenon showed them the way. Preach freedom and you get the youth and the disaffected. If done right, you will also get your base and the Indy's. Think about this, no Republican has gone out and preached pure conservative/libertarian freedom since Reagan. We keep getting Progressive/Rockefeller types, and they just do not appeal to the masses. Oh, and they keep losing.

There is a perception (and it is has merit) that the parties are two sides of the same coin.

On abortion and gay marriage, the Republicans are awful messengers. Gay marriage is a state issue, period. For abortion, focus on the really bad stuff (ie, late term abortions when you are killing a viable child) to sway the masses to your side. Oh, and it is a state issue also.

 

[Brooklyn]

Show us at least 3 academic peer reviewed studies that show that children reared in a household headed by a gay "couple" are more apt at being delinquent citizens.


Also the slippery slope argument is total ********.

No its not. But regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power at all. Problem solved. Other than persons not competent to enter into binding contracts ( like marriage ) anything goes. The 1 amendment right of religious liberty ( more accurately right of conscience ) will prevent the state from imposing or forcing recognition of any such contract subject to strict scrutiny test.

The problem is that no one will accept this, because each side wants to have the state force its view on the other.

Right now we call this the culture war. There is no solution other than get government out of the businesses altogether which will not happen. The fist ammendemt will die on the alter of equal protection, if not now then soon.
This will lead to social unrest I fear, and for very little gain.

Of course if Christians were Muslims all would be forgiven. BTW I am not a Christian ,I am not a Muslim and I am not Gay. I am a atheist and literally have no dog in this fight.

 

[Bagpiperer]

By using your logic, we would also have to ban divorce and single parents since both of those do not create a strong society.

Not stacking the deck to encourage divorce would be a good start. Fixing the massive charlie foxtrot that is the intersection of welfare and child support would be good, too. Who knows, it might even cut down on the number of single moms.

Both parties are rife with statist progressives, who just happen to have different visions of utopia. Neither the neocons on the right nor the socialists on the left care one whit about the Constitution, just that their side comes out on top, and that they get to be the new regime's mandarins.

 

[Haides]

Am I the only one still wondering why the **** the government is even involved in marriage at all?! Like seriously, who in their right mind says to their spouse, "Honey, our relationship is so fantastic, let's get the government in on this!!"

I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but why the hell are people asking permission to get married?!?! The way I see it, marriage is one of my core religious principles, which means that the government is in charge of one of my core religious principles. Is that not a violation of MY freedom of religion too?

The gay marriage argument on both sides is total bulls***. The pro-gay marriage losers are asking the .gov to expand it's power and the anti-gays are acting like whiny kids. Why don't we all campaign to get the government OUT of marriage ENTIRELY. That should be something we could all get behind and work together towards, rather than fighting each other over a worthless social issue that's only purpose is to distract us while the .gov is busy stealing our freedoms and running our economy into the ground.

 

[obnoxious2]

Am I the only one still wondering why the **** the government is even involved in marriage at all?! Like seriously, who in their right mind says to their spouse, "Honey, our relationship is so fantastic, let's get the government in on this!!"

I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but why the hell are people asking permission to get married?!?! The way I see it, marriage is one of my core religious principles, which means that the government is in charge of one of my core religious principles. Is that not a violation of MY freedom of religion too?

The gay marriage argument on both sides is total bulls***. The pro-gay marriage losers are asking the .gov to expand it's power and the anti-gays are acting like whiny kids. Why don't we all campaign to get the government OUT of marriage ENTIRELY. That should be something we could all get behind and work together towards, rather than fighting each other over a worthless social issue that's only purpose is to distract us while the .gov is busy stealing our freedoms and running our economy into the ground.

Because there are financial implications. It affects how much revenue the government will be able to collect.

 

[Haides]

As if the government needs more revenue to spend oh so efficiently?

 

[2AHokie]

Am I the only one still wondering why the **** the government is even involved in marriage at all?! Like seriously, who in their right mind says to their spouse, "Honey, our relationship is so fantastic, let's get the government in on this!!"

I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but why the hell are people asking permission to get married?!?! The way I see it, marriage is one of my core religious principles, which means that the government is in charge of one of my core religious principles. Is that not a violation of MY freedom of religion too?

The gay marriage argument on both sides is total bulls***. The pro-gay marriage losers are asking the .gov to expand it's power and the anti-gays are acting like whiny kids. Why don't we all campaign to get the government OUT of marriage ENTIRELY. That should be something we could all get behind and work together towards, rather than fighting each other over a worthless social issue that's only purpose is to distract us while the .gov is busy stealing our freedoms and running our economy into the ground.

I agree with the sentiment (that government shouldn't be involved), but the reason it is are employee benefits and taxes.

My personal solution, that will never happen, is for the government to do civil unions only for everyone, straight or gay. The civil union is what would matter for taxes or benefits. The word "marriage" would be left for the various religions and sects to fight over. A Catholic marriage could be different than a Lutheran marriage and neither one would be anything more than a religious ceremony. The Lutheran church could decide to marry gays independently of what the Catholic church decided to do.

But I know it will never happen.

 

[gmhowell]

Can people take this crap about how the Republican party needs to be harder/softer on gay marriage somewhere else so the thread can stay on Woollard?

BTW, how about instead of the authoritarian right wing trying to figure out why they lost, ask some people who didn't vote for Romney? As it is, you're just shouting in an echo chamber.

 

[BenL]

In 5 pages, we've walked from Woolard to gay marriage.

So, is the belief that Woolard has a real shot at SCOTUS, or will it also get denied in the hopes that another case will go?

With a CA split, one of these cases must go to SCOTUS at some point.

 

[Boondock Saint]

In 5 pages, we've walked from Woolard to gay marriage.

So, is the belief that Woolard has a real shot at SCOTUS, or will it also get denied in the hopes that another case will go?

With a CA split, one of these cases must go to SCOTUS at some point.

There's not a real split at the moment. In CA7, Moore held that there is some right outside of the home and the judge suggested that implementing a regulatory scheme like NY/MD would meet with their approval. Remember, IL has a total ban on carry. The recent losses in Kachalsky (CA2) and Woollard (CA4) aren't speaking to whether or not a right outside the home exists, just that if it did, the permitting systems in use would pass muster. It's a narrow difference, but one nonetheless.

There are some nerdy differences in Kachalsky/Woollard, maybe not enough to be distinguishable in the eyes of The Nine. Either way, Gura will likely wait for the clock to expire on IL's right to appeal Moore before submitting his writ in Woollard. It's all speculation, but if the Court wants to hear a case, you could make the argument that they wanted a shot at Moore first. If they don't get it, maybe they take Woollard. Maybe they don't.

Hurry up and wait again, unfortunately.

 

[Bagpiperer]

Moore would be the better wedge in the door, in my opinion.

If the Supreme Court upheld CA7's ruling, one could then show that the practical (and intended) effect of laws like those in NY and MD was to deny all but the well-connected a fundamental right to bear arms, and argue based on equal protection grounds. While it is doubtful that the Supreme Court, in light of its recent hesitancy to overturn legislation (thanks, Chief Justice Roberts), would find such a law unconstitutional, it would grant more weight to the poll tax argument.

Ultimately, the question of gun control will not go away judicially, however badly we wish it would. It's going to be a slow slog to recover, politically, rights that people were not zealous enough in guarding. And, yes, that extends far beyond just the 2nd Amendment; people have let more or less everything in the Bill of Rights slide, save for maybe the 3rd.

 

[danb]

Moore would be the better wedge in the door, in my opinion.

And, yes, that extends far beyond just the 2nd Amendment; people have let more or less everything in the Bill of Rights slide, save for maybe the 3rd.

^^^ this

 

[m4strmind]

I am surprised to see the gay hate here.

I suspected that the well educated people here would be more on the side of "letting people do whatever they want to do with their lives"

I am not gay so i don't really have a foot in that battle.

However here is a thought for the gay people out there.

Gay people as a group should be more on the pro gun side. If there is a group in our modern age that is persecuted/harassed/violently abused its gay people. They should definitely have the ability and right to defend themselves as much as anybody else.

I would love to see some political marketing by gay people exercising their right to self defense. It might be enough to get some gay people on our side and maybe even change the "liberal agenda" on guns.

 

[Haides]

^ I have been saying that for a while.

 

[Goateggs]

Gay people as a group should be more on the pro gun side. If there is a group in our modern age that is persecuted/harassed/violently abused its gay people. They should definitely have the ability and right to defend themselves as much as anybody else.

I would love to see some political marketing by gay people exercising their right to self defense. It might be enough to get some gay people on our side and maybe even change the "liberal agenda" on guns.

Have you heard of Pink Pistols? They are apparently having some organizational difficulties, which is unfortunate. Might be a good outreach area.

 

[RavensChick]

I am surprised to see the gay hate here.

I suspected that the well educated people here would be more on the side of "letting people do whatever they want to do with their lives"

Gay hate? Really? I haven't seen any on here. Just because someone may be against gay marriage, doesn't make them a "hater". My religious beliefs state that homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery and pre-martial sex. So is lying, cheating and stealing. I hate the sin, love the sinner (which I am one of them). My arguments against gay marriage are not based on my Christian views, only social science and what I'm seeing in other countries that have moved away from the traditional meaning of marriage.

I'm not doing or saying anything that would prevent them from "doing whatever they want with their lives".

 

[m4strmind]

I am surprised to see the gay hate here.

I suspected that the well educated people here would be more on the side of "letting people do whatever they want to do with their lives"

Gay hate? Really? I haven't seen any on here. Just because someone may be against gay marriage, doesn't make them a "hater". My religious beliefs state that homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery and pre-martial sex. So is lying, cheating and stealing. I hate the sin, love the sinner (which I am one of them). My arguments against gay marriage are not based on my Christian views, only social science and what I'm seeing in other countries that have moved away from the traditional meaning of marriage.

I'm not doing or saying anything that would prevent them from "doing whatever they want with their lives".

sorry but allowing one group of people certain liberties but denying them to another group of people is entirely wrong. No matter what topic this remains true.

I do agree with the argument that government doesn't belong in marriage at all. If the government wasn't giving privileges to straight people via marriage, then there would not be a debate.

Creating a system where straight people can get married and recognized by the government but gay people cannot is creating a system where gay people are treated unfairly.

I am curious as to if you can site the social science where it says that the world would be in turmoil if gay people were allowed to marry. My guess is they are going to be as biased and nonfactual as the gun control "studies".

The gay people i do know are no more volatile than any straight people I know. They pay taxes, would make great parents, and are generally a good contribution to society. I see no reason why straight people should be given any privileges that gay people are not given.

 

[Haides]

Alright already. I'm just as guilty as you are, but take the gay marriage debate to another thread or PM each other if you want. This thread is supposed to be for discussing Woollard.

 

[RavensChick]

I am surprised to see the gay hate here.

I suspected that the well educated people here would be more on the side of "letting people do whatever they want to do with their lives"




sorry but allowing one group of people certain liberties but denying them to another group of people is entirely wrong. No matter what topic this remains true.

I do agree with the argument that government doesn't belong in marriage at all. If the government wasn't giving privileges to straight people via marriage, then there would not be a debate.

Creating a system where straight people can get married and recognized by the government but gay people cannot is creating a system where gay people are treated unfairly.

I am curious as to if you can site the social science where it says that the world would be in turmoil if gay people were allowed to marry. My guess is they are going to be as biased and nonfactual as the gun control "studies".

The gay people i do know are no more volatile than any straight people I know. They pay taxes, would make great parents, and are generally a good contribution to society. I see no reason why straight people should be given any privileges that gay people are not given.

Thanks for making my point. Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

I have gay friends and co-workers too. They are no different than anyone else except for their sexual orientation. I don't know why you are ASSuming that I hate gays just because I'm against gay marriage. And this isn't just about gays (which you are making it out to be). I am also against co-habitation (regardless of sexual orientation), easy divorce and polygamy, all of which are non optimal environments to raise children.

As for the slippery slope being BS, here come the calls for polygamy:

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...alize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

I'm done on this subject. Back to Woollard...

 

[Kharn]

This thread is supposed to be about carry rights outside the home, not who loves who or what they do in the bedroom...