Today it was reported in the Washington Post:
The highest court in Massachusetts declared today that the state legislature may not offer “civil union” instead of marriage for same-sex couples, in a ruling that guarantees that the first state-recognized same-sex marriages in U.S. history can take place beginning in mid-May.
As pointed out in the article this will be a big debate point in the coming election and cause further division in the politics of this nation. But it is a major step forward for freedom. The other states will have to deal with that pesky “full faith and credit“ clause in the constitution that says they must recognize the licenses of other states. Which will bring up the issue of concealed carry licenses. Lots of implications here. Glad to see it.
Now if MA would just get rid of bunch of their draconian gun laws. Why is it that people seem to only want one or two particular flavors of freedom at a time? I can’t help but think that people don’t want freedom at all, or at least they only want it for themselves and not everyone else.
I got a call this morning from someone in Pennsylvania. They were about to make their airplane reservations for Boomershoot 2004 and wanted to make sure there was still openings for the event. I told him yes, there shouldn’t be a problem if it gets here the next week or so. Pennsylvania! First time for that state to be represented. Cool.
Entries are actually running a bit behind normal so I’m pleased to hear people are in the process of signing up even if I haven’t received the entries yet. I got a couple emails this week saying “the check is in the mail” so that should help get me to the point where I can order the rest of the materials needed for this year’s event.
I got an email from someone suggesting the targets have various color stripes or other markings on them to aid in the spotter/shooter dialog. Good suggestion. We knew it was a problem and planned to put up colored or marked stakes of some sort in the target area to use as landmarks. But this would be even further help.
Kim du Toit put a link on his blog to http://www.boomershoot.org and doubled the number of page views overnight. A couple of other blogs put up links as well, apparently after reading Kim’s post. See http://web.tampabay.rr.com/coastwatcher/ for example. I am very pleased. Thank you Kim. You will be our first representative from Texas. And it was most pleasant listening to your South African accent when we talked on the phone. I’m looking forward to seeing you and your family in May.
From the BBC News — Blunkett plans tougher terror law
Home Secretary David Blunkett wants new anti-terrorism laws to make it easier to convict British terror suspects. He has discussed lowering the standard of proof required by a court and introducing more pre-emptive action.
Just a couple of steps further. They already given up the right to be confronted with charges and a speedy trial. From the same article:
The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreigners who are suspected international terrorists to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial in the event their lives would be in danger if they were dported.
Britain is holding 14 foreign terror suspects under this law, based on evidence which is tested in secret.
They are planning for secret trials and inability to confront your accusors, again from the same article:
Evidence in the new trials would be kept secret from the defendants to protect MI5, MI6 and GCHQ intelligence sources, Mr Blunkett said.
And they have already given up part of the right to remain silent, from the BBC guide to suspect rights:
The previously important right of silence was amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Courts can now draw conclusions from your silence…
And of course everyone knows they gave up their right to keep and bear arms years ago. It’s likely that it won’t be long before they realize the right to keep and bear arms is what guarantees the preservation of other inalienable rights. Now would be a good time to review The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek again. Hayek spells out why socialism is a slippery slope whose inevitable conclusion is the loss of economic and person freedom resulting in tyranny. It’s not that the proponents of the socialist system were intending for that to happen, but that it is a necessary conclusion of it’s implementation. And that the good intentioned, probably trustworthy, early promoters, will be pushed out by those who crave the power and will abuse it. It’s excellent reading material.