The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

Boooo! Hiss!!

The 2nd Amendment does not state that the well-trained have the right to arms. It states that THE PEOPLE have the right to arms so that a well trained (aka well regulated) militia can be possible. This is basic grammar.

 

I made no claims of the UN article containing the word only.

 

To date, the Human Rights Committee has only considered the issue of same sex marriage once, in 1999. In Joslin v New Zealand (Joslin)[13], the authors claimed that failure of the Marriage Act 1955 (NZ) to provide for same-sex marriage discriminated against them on the basis of their sex and indirectly on the basis of their sexual orientation. The authors argued that the denial of the ability to marry had ‘a real adverse impact’ on their lives. The authors said they were excluded from full membership of society, their relationship was stigmatised and, unlike heterosexual couples, they did not have the ability to choose whether or not to marry.(*)

The Human Rights Committee found that ‘a mere refusal to provide for marriage between homosexual couples’ does not violate the State Party’s obligations under the ICCPR.

 

I never claimed you did. You seem to have confused yourself

 

Exactly correct! It has been one of my themes in this thread and others, really a general theme of mine to show how the LEFT MUST confuse and degrade the language to make their dishonest points. They must state "marriage" is a right to advance the "same sex marriage" agenda, when "marriage" has always been a licensed activity, or it has always been by definition a privilege. That being true, the movement is not for "equal rights" but it is to give homosexual couples SPECIAL privileges for no other reason, and BECAUSE they are homosexual, making the argument hardly worthy of consideration. The same is true as the LEFT has through propaganda, made the terms "republic" (dropping out the word "Constitutional" in the term "Constitutional Republic) and "democracy" interchangeable when the true meanings of the words are actually quite different. The LEFT (mostly Democrats) must also engage in such ward game play when talking about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which is a single sentence. Therefore, they may not add any words to the single sentence, or any additional ways to provide for the "General Welfare." If they do, they are literally re-writing the single sentence of Article 1, Section 8 to make it mean something different. As you point out the LEFT ALSO plays such word games with the Second Amendment. The LEFT has to be so duplicitous. They could never admit the Constitution means what it SAYS as that would destroy them, showing the Democrat Party to be the Party of Lies, Threats, and Corcoran; Treason!

 

actually, the supreme court declared marriage is a basic civil right. not a privilege.

 

They ALSO declared Obamacare "constitutional" when it violates many, many parts of the Constitution. How Does Obamacare adhere to Article 1, Section 8, and NOT violate the Tenth Amendment? Roberts had to INVENT a whole new tax (the penalty-tax) to MAKE Obamacre "constitutional" all while IGNORING Article 1, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution's Preamble states what the Constitution is supposed to do. Hoe does Obamacare' "preserve the blessings of Liberty to ourselves, and our posterity...? Anything for which you NEED a license, or official government permission IS NOT A RIGHT!

 

You have made certain points.

Even so, virtually every "right" we are granted under American law is 'regulated'; firearms and related issues surrounding them should be no 'exception'.

 

True "RIGHTS" can't be regulated as they are unalienable. People have the "RIGHT" to be left alone, and the RESPONSIBILITY to leave others alone. No one has the "RIGTH" to violate the "RIGTHS" of another. The "right to keep and bear arms" should be unlimited and unabridged; should not be infringed as the simple "keeping and bearing" of weapons does not, and cannot infringe on anyone's "RIGTHS." Oh, they may not LIKE you keeping your arsenal, but merely keeping and bearing those weapons is not an infringement on anyone else's rights. We can greatly regulate the use of such weapons. Simply carrying a weapon is not using a weapon, like carrying a hammer is not pounding a nail.

Same with the "RIGHT" to Free Speech. Simply saying something generally does not violate the rights of others. Yelling "FIRE!" in crowded theater violates the rights of others since it puts them in unneeded and unjustifiable potential harm because of a "prank." You can destroy someone with words, or the exercise of you Freedom of Speech, and they have no legal recourse as long as you are telling the truth. So no, true "RIGTHS" are not regulated until the exercise of such "RIGTHS" violates the rights of others, making your actions not the exercise of a "RIGHT" at all. .

 

marriage is a basic civil right. sorry

 

"RIGHTS" are not granted under American Law, privileges are so granted. True Natural Rights are bestowed on their Creation by God, and are therefore thought to be unalienable. After all, who could overrule God, other than Democrats? The Constitution seeks to acknowledge such "RIGHTS." For example, the Second Amendment states in part "...the right of the people shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment does not GRANT any rights, just acknowledges a "RGIHT" that already belonged to the People as it was thought to be a Natural Right bestowed on their creation by God. Welfare is a "RIGHT" we are granted under American Law making it a privileges that has been redefined again by the LEFT's Propaganda Machine calling Welfare a "RIGHT."

 

Marriage between "men and women" is a basic civil right. Sorry.

 

Then why the NEED to get government permission, or a "license" to marry? "sorry"


privilege (ˈprɪvɪlɪd&#658

— n
1. a benefit, immunity, etc, granted under certain conditions

2. the advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, esp to the disadvantage of others: one of the obstacles to social harmony is privilege

3. any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of a country by its constitution . (there is no reference to "marriage" IN the Constitution! )

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privileges?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir

 

I honestly don't get this thread at all. ALL Real NATURLA RIGHTS are INDIVIDAL rights. There is NOTHING individual about mirage. An individual can't wake up one day and, out-of-the-blue decide to get married. They have to find someone to agree to be their spouse. Then the have to get government permission ("marriage license"), and then get someone to perform the ceremony. If "marriage" was a right, one person would be violating the "rights" of another if they refuse a marriage proposal. Somehow would be violating the engaged couple's "rights" if they refused to preform the ceremony. All the homosexual movement wants is FORCE acceptance through the granting of SPECIAL PRVLIDGES, plain and simple...

 

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL has a good explanation of why marriage is a fundamental right.

Because living with your chosen mate and making babies is a Constitutional right, marriage became a constitutional right.

Baker v Nelson

I cant imagine how the gays and their advocates can argue with a straight face that "gay marriage" is also a "fundamental right"

 

Okay... STOP with the nonsense.

1. Your "RIGHTS" are indeed defined by LAWS. If YOU don't 'believe' that, then just try going out here in society and just doing whatever you THINK is your 'privilege' or 'right'; you'll have to WAKE THE HELL UP, very quickly. I'm certain of that.

2. According to the Constitution, the word "Creator" is used, not "God". Now, YOU may believe that means whatever 'god' you were taught or indoctrinated to believe in... but that DOES NOT apply to everyone else.

Again, no one in this or any other nation possesses any absolute "right" or 'autonomy' which is not defined by some law, contract, custom or agreement. Yes, we DO have rights prescribed and defined by American laws. That should be clear to ANYONE who can think outside of talking points or empty, partisan political rhetoric.

Oh yes... the reasonable limitations upon what we can or cannot do, are define via our LAWS. That should be obvious, no matter 'what' philosophy anyone tries to throw at you.

 

Wait, what? "living with your chosen mate and making babies" is done all the time WITHOUT being married. Any law that would forbid such a thing is a violation of Natural Law as such a union of mutual consent of BOTH partners requires nothing from anyone else. Such a union is an exercise in the Individual Liberty of each of the two in the couple. No government permission is needed for such a relationship.

I agree with you that "same sex marriage" is not aright, but neither is regular "marriage." BTW the FACT we have to put the words "same sex" or "gay" in front of the word "marriage" simply to define what we are in fact talking about SHOWS what we are talking about IS NOT "marriage," but something different that needs to be clearified...

 

no distinction of only men and women exists. sorry

- - - Updated - - -

marriage is a basic civil right. sorry

 

It is both sad and shocking at your lack of understanding about the concept of Natural Rights as they were the driving ideology of our system of governance.

In theory EVERYTHING is legal until it is made otherwise. Basic enough, yet you seem to not understand the concept when you wrote " …the reasonable limitations upon what we can or cannot do…" If a person is of age there is nothing they MUST do by law except buy health insurance. Laws are meant to safeguard Individual Liberty, not to control or alienate unalienable Liberty.

lib•er•ty
[lib-er-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural lib•er•ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir​

To make laws simply to control people is not what this country is to be about, and was not that way before the ascendance of the Democrat Party!

Most would agree that the words "Creator" and "God" can be used interchangeably. Don't see your point.

"The reasonable limitations" of conduct you describe are permissible since outside the bounds of that "reason" one would violate the rights of others. Can they pass a law that says you can't cut your hair a certain way or MUST get it cut a certain way? Regardless of the "cut" you will not be affecting anyone else… Would banning or MANDATING a certain haircut be a "reasonable limitation" of liberty? who chooses? Natural Law would suggest that unless you are infringing on someone else's rights you are at Liberty to do what you like. All "RIGHTS" are ultimately the "RIGHT" to offend…

 

Why, because you say so? Why do you need permission?

li·cense (as in MARRAGE LICENSE)
[lahy-suhns] Show IPA noun, verb, li·censed, li·cens·ing.

noun
1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license?s=t​

Why would you say something that NEEDS permission is a "RIGHT?" Making stuff up?

 

Weep and marvel then, for I'm no lawyer or legal scholar.

Even so, if you live in America (as I have ALL of my life), you know how the powers-that-be practically affect one's life.

As Bob Dylan said, "...you gonna' have to serve somebody" (no mater what you think/believe).

 

TRANSLATION: YIPPIE! I live in conquered country where my RIGHTS have been taken away and made into whatever PRIVLDIGES my government decides to give me! I'm so happy!

 

because the supreme court said so.

 

We must agree to disagree.

Peace.

 

The same Supreme Court that said it was not a violation of Individual Liberty for the government to FORCE people to buy health insurance to safeguard their OWN financial assets? I guess they FORGOT to eliminate the formal permission (marriage license) for marriage... YOU better talk to them about that.

Are you arguing that you NEED formal government permission to exercise a "RIGHT?" Who taught you that, Democrats?