Don’t know if I agree with this article. If the words of Proposition 8 had said...
“Only police officers are valid or recognized gun owners in California.”
...wouldn’t we say this was an attempt to ban guns from normal law abiding citizens?
I don’t agree with Proposition 8 being overturned, but some of the “logic” in this article is hypocritical and specious.
But proposition 8 was not about gun owners in California
I don’t think the analogy fits. A gun owner actually owns a physical item. This law will not require anyone to be castrated. ;)
I have been harping on the second truth in the article since the last millennium and even articulated it similarly. Everyone has the exact same rights under proposition 8, but homosexuals just don’t want to exercise the right. That is true for many of us regarding many laws.
>>but some of the “logic” in this article is hypocritical and specious.<<
I agree with them, right down to the detail level, to the point that it is almost as if I wrote this article. But I didn’t. It is clear, however, that the author and I have thought about this and come up with the exact same “root cause” issues.
“Only police officers are valid or recognized gun owners in California.”
...wouldn’t we say this was an attempt to ban guns from normal law abiding citizens?
STRAW MAN.
If the proposition had said "Only men have penises and only women have vaginas" then it would have been an anatomy lesson rather than a statement affirming the institution of marriage.
The right to own firearms is protected by the constitution and the verbiage in your hypothetical proposition limits private ownership of an item, and not the government’s recognition of a government institution not mentioned in the constitution.
The Constitution guarantees individual gun ownership via the second amendment. No such amendment exist regarding marriage, in fact it isn’t even mentioned. Marriage not guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is.
IOW, no correlation.