Thoughts on Guns, Marriage and the Constitution

I reread the constitution tonight. Actually, I'm not sure that I had ever just read the constitution but I had some thoughts running through my head and the constitution seemed like the best place to turn to sort through them. It helped, but it didn't organize them completely. I hoping that placing these thoughts into words, maybe it will all come together for me.



Here's what I believe:



I believe that a society can have righteous and unrighteous leaders.

I believe that an unrighteous leader is one who suppresses the needs/wants of the majority for the desires of a few.

I believe that preventing tyranny (or unrighteous leaders) was a strong motivator as the founding fathers drafted the constitution. I think it is interesting the steps they took to protect the people from its own governing body.

I believe that these steps included establishing a repbulic, creating checks and balances, term limitations, and due process.

I believe in the right to bear arms, not because we own a gun, want a gun, or because I even like them. I believe in the right because it allowed our forefathers to overcome the tyranny they felt oppressed by. They wanted to ensure that right to future generations. The freedom of speech and the right to assemble are also part of this protection. They work well for the majority of circumstances, but the right to bear arms is crucial for extreme circumstances. (I hope I never see the need, but I'm glad we have the right, if it is needed).

I believe most laws are cultural institutions created to reflect the values of the society in which those laws are prescribed.

As a voter, I believe I should vote according to my values. I need to share my voice so that the laws will best represent my values. If I am a dissenting voice, so be it.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to live in a society that also believes this. I want the laws of the land to reflect this belief. I vote in accordance to this value.



Reflections on Prop 8:

So that brings me to my consideration. It seems to me that the judicial reversal of prop 8 is only partially a question of the morality of same sex marriage.


Here are the questions this law and its being repealed are really asking:
Does the judicial branch (one person) have the right to reverse laws enacted by the states that clearly represents the values of the society that established it (majority vote)?

Are the states limited in what they can allow or disallow in their state constitutions?


Is the California law a violation of the first amendment?

I imagine that this could be a debate that would go all the way to the supreme court.