Chameleon12

The Obergefell decision addressed full faith and firearms
by Ben Crystal Views

In ruling that same-sex marriage is now a civil right that cannot be denied anywhere in the United States, the Supreme Court said:

The idea of the Constitution was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

I consider the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to be a bold statement affirming that the rights guaranteed to each American cannot be denied by any other merely based on opinion, media coverage or polling data. If Bob marries Rob in Provincetown, Massachusetts, then their marriage is legal in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and vice versa.

The decision in Obergefell touched off quite the chorus of boos on the right side of the political spectrum. Objections, both spiritual and moral, were raised using language both professorial and profane. While I’m well aware of my status as a bit of a libertarian outlaw among my conservative fellows when it comes to boys marrying boys and girls marrying girls, I’d like to point out that Obergefell actually represents good news, albeit not the sort that its primary proponents would consider celebration-worthy.

It’s a simple constitutional construct. In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted:
The freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.

I can brook no argument with that premise. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply across the board — even when other Americans, even those functioning in an official governmental capacity, might find your particular exercise thereof distasteful. Given the tendency of the American moral compass to spin like Hillary Clinton answering a question about email, we should be glad that the court has recognized the immutability of Bob’s right to marry Rob instead of Roberta. It’s not that we have to endorse Bob and Rob’s nuptials; hell, we don’t even have to send a gift. It’s that if Bob and Rob can marry each other in Provincetown and then carry their wedded bliss to Prudhoe Bay, then Sam can marry Samantha in Prudhoe Bay and carry their wedded bliss to Provincetown. It also means that when Sam packs his bride into the U-Haul and heads east, he gets to take his guns with him.

From my perspective, any laws that restrict American citizens in good standing from exercising the rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights are automatically invalid. I suspect even the most hardcore anti-freedom storm trooper at Moms Demand Action would reflexively agree with that assessment — right up until “guns” entered the conversation. I doubt too many of our liberal compatriots have realized it yet, but their victory for same-sex marriage is a victory for advocates of the 2nd Amendment. In granting constitutionally protected status to same-sex couples, the court has also ruled that your concealed carry weapon permit (CCW) is legal from sea to shining sea. If Bob and Rob’s marriage license is valid nationwide, then so are Sam and Samantha’s CCWs. Remember: We’re not talking about some municipal leash law or zoning ordinance. We’re talking about the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

In ruling in favor of Obergefell, the court has served to remind us all that just because you live in Alabama doesn’t mean you can’t legally and officially live there as husband and husband. However, in ruling in favor of Obergefell, the court has also served to remind us all that just because you live in New York doesn’t mean you can’t legally and officially own and carry a firearm. For that matter, if “open carry” is legal in your town, then it’s legal anywhere.

At some level, I think it’s unfortunate that we needed a case involving two guys getting hitched to get the court to finally rule as valid aspects of the Constitution that were ratified nearly two and a half centuries ago. But amid the chaos of the most willfully and arrogantly dishonest president in history, we should thank the justices for not doing more damage than usual and send them on their doddering way. The Obergefell decision grants constitutional protections to a social and spiritual construct — marriage — that is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the right to keep and bear arms has its own chapter in the book of God-given freedom. Kennedy pointed out in his Obergefell opinion:
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

If the “right” to marry is indeed a legally and judicially definable right, then the right to keep and bear arms absolutely is. Subsequently, if the 14th Amendment applies to marriage, then it clearly applies to — and enhances — 2nd Amendment freedoms. The ruling in Obergefell means all 50 states just became CCW “must-issue” and that all states must recognize as valid CCWs issued in other states.

Oddly enough, it fell to Justice Antonin Scalia to recognize the part of the Constitution that ought to have ended most of this nonsense before it even began. During Obergefell’s oral arguments back in April, Scalia asked:
What about Article IV? I’m so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” Now, why doesn’t that apply?

That reciprocity, she’s a real mother.

–Ben Crystal

JW

I don't feel like abiding by speed limit laws. My right to drive as I choose is being unconstitutionally restricted by government. If my choice to ignore speed limits does violence to the organization of transport for the driving public, it is certainly far less dreadful than the violence done to society by an arbitrary ruling that sets sexual relationships on its head.

While a fellow driver or unfortunate pedestrian might be subjected to my choice, the entirety of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish subscribing public is subjected to the effects of gay marriage. Every member of the public offended by blatant homosexual displays, however pointed they may be, is subjected to that choice. If my driving can be regulated by law, so can every other behavior that has any kind of profound effect on the public at large.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

I am confused ... my Constitution did not mention Bob or Rob ,,, uuhh ,, did you get a different copy ? Bob and Rob can butt fk all they want , what the hell is the problem ? Is it the term " marriage " that you really seek to change along with the religious doctrine it upholds ? Are you trying to justify your amorel ,unnatural acts Ahhh, the plot thickens and the true motive is exposed .. attacking religion will not solve Bob and Robs problem , perhaps it is the answer .

Chameleon12

Who are you talking to JW or me? If you're talking to me then, you've seriously missed the point of my article.

MC1Auto

Why are we asking the government whom we can marry. The request suggest that we are a servant of the government. My understanding of traffic laws only apply to those involved in comerse. We have excepted the unconstitutional intrusion of our rights over a period of time. It will take mass amounts of civil disobedience to regain our natural rights, I am not sure we are up to the task.

Chameleon12

You're exactly right. The government should have no authority over who can or can't marry. By defining different choices, it limits our freedoms.