They say politics make the strangest bedfellows.
Ironically, a liberal activist judge in Oklahoma has once again furthered the judicial basis to strengthen 2nd Amendment rights of Americans…completely unintentionally.
While ruling to gut not only the Constitution of Oklahoma but also to force the Okie state to recognize marriage licenses from other states, U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern forwarded the 2nd Amendment.
You see, the voters of Oklahoma voted to amend their state constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a women. Apparently, states rights don’t really matter to Judge Kern when he can just imagine that the issue of marriage is somehow in the US Constitution. It’s not.
But let’s pretend that Kern’s ruling that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is somehow relevant to gay marriage. I say it like that because marriage can be viewed like tax breaks. A state may dictate who qualifies for tax breaks and who doesn’t. I mean, there are tax breaks for married people that are not available to non married straight people living together…how exactly is that fair? Tax breaks if you buy an electric car, yet nothing for regular car owners. There is a ton of inequality that the 14th Amendment does nothing to rectify. But I digress.
Fine, let’s say Kern’s use of the 14th Amendment is correct.
How can liberal activist judges like Kern defend against legislation such as NY’s SAFE Act which clearly allows SPECIAL citizens like retired police officers and members of Gov. Cuomo’s staff to have rights that are denied regular citizens.
Kern actually makes a pretty persuasive argument against the special exceptions in the SAFE Act by stating thus:
“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”
I couldn’t agree more…when it comes to actual guaranteed rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You know, like that pesky little 2nd Amendment that clearly states that it shall not be infringed.
Gun control measures found in New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, by Kern’s own logic, must be tossed out because to allow SOME (ie retired cops, active police, government officials, the wealthy) the right to keep and bear arms while denying others is the very definition of a violation of equal protection.
And according to Kern, even if 7,999,999 people in NYC are against guns, that 1 person who believes in the 2nd Amendment must be allowed to keep and bear arms because the majority view must give way to individual constitutional rights. His words, not mine.
Furthermore, the scraps of said right, that are tossed to the citizens of these states in order to hoodwink the justice system into believing that a ban on firearms doesn’t really exist, is the very notion of that Kern’s speaks of when he says; “It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions.”
Hear hear. I will take a double dose of Second Amendment freedom please. Let my plate runneth over with my right to keep and bear arms.
Also, if the courts rule that one state MUST recognize the marriage certificate issued by another state, regardless of whether that state believes in gay marriage, then they MUST also follow that precedent concerning concealed carry permits. If issued in one state they must be valid in all states whether the other states like it or not. I’m looking at you Hawaii and New York.
Regardless of my feelings toward the government’s involvement with marriage in general, if the court has decided to use this logic to overturn a states sovereignty on imagined rights, it must hold true for actual enumerated rights and as such, liberal activist judges are doing an unintentional favor for the 2nd Amendment and that just amuses me to no end.