Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Owners Foundation of America hates the freedom to marry (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If I cared enough to read it... (8+ / 0-)

    I'm sure it's a mess, that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

    Jonathan Chait as New York Magazine just destroyed Paul Clement's brief succinctly: Gays Can’t Marry Because ... They Plan Babies?

    It does make sense in the limited way of thinking that, okay, you might want marriage as a way to force the two straight people facing a sudden pregnancy to get married and raise the baby together. But this is a reason to deny marriage to gays because … there’s only so much marriage to go around? The gays will sign up all the best caterers? Clement has an argument for straight marriage, but how it translates to preventing gay marriage, I can’t fathom.
    They just don't add up, so I can't say I desire to trouble my beautiful mind to read this Gun Advocate's brief.

    I find it odd that group can defend one right a absolutist and another as negligible. The more obvious tact would be Gun Owners Foundation would oppose government meddling and the use of authority to narrow available freedoms. But of course, "this is different..."

    Not that I see what concern it is to Gun Owners of America who anyone is allowed to marry. It's like cartographers filing a amicus brief.

    "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."
    —Dan Savage

    by Scott Wooledge on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Scott, well put here, and a question. (0+ / 0-)
      I find it odd that group can defend one right a absolutist and another as negligible. The more obvious tact would be Gun Owners Foundation would oppose government meddling and the use of authority to narrow available freedoms. But of course, "this is different..."

      Not that I see what concern it is to Gun Owners of America who anyone is allowed to marry. It's like cartographers filing a amicus brief.

      Your words in bold are held as-valid by anti-gunners, many of whom if intellectually honest, will say "we can't take them all this year, but we can by 2016 if we really try".
      A frontpager opined:
      Better that everyone be disarmed, well... except for the professionals, be they uniformed by Xe/Blackwater, DHS or your State Police.  The 1% provides for the rest of us.
      Unsaid:
      Oh, and probably the really lawless will still have guns too.

      There's another concept:
      Better that thousands should die at the hands of the lawless, than raise a hand against them.  Once they know you pose no real threat of harm to them, the lawless too will give-up the guns.
      That's a sort-of twisted Society of Friends pacifist mantra.
      A Moral high-ground  death, torture or raping will benefit society, not to mention your personal karma.

      A question.  If the GOF is a branch of the GOA, and the GOA is a non-profit organized and granted status for the purpose of Second Amendment issues?

      Then marriage equality violates the scope of the charter granted to the organization.
      I'd be calling the State Corporations Division, and the IRS.

      "Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do around here."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site