It makes me laugh to see hypocrisy exposed:

Marriage controllers assert that “society has a right” to control marriage, that “democracy” justifies infringing Individuals’ rights for the supposed good of the people.   They frantically purport that society is imperiled without marriage control.   Yet the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments say that, unless any authority is specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution itself, the right is always reserved to the States or to “the People” (codified or not).   Marriage is – appropriately – nowhere in the Constitution.   Thereby, government is banned from marriage.   Moreover, both federal and state governments are additionally prohibited by the First Amendment (freedoms of assembly, religion, and speech).   Yet marriage controllers cry, “Let the People choose” the re-definition of marriage through majoritiarian collectivism.   Hence, their re-definition of “the People” means a constitutional absurdity that the government – not the Individuals – has the supposed right to determine marriage.    

But there is no such thing as “society’s rights” – a collectivist idea premised in Marxism.   America is not a “democracy.”   And constitutionally, “the People” only means the Individuals.   America is a Constitutional Republic of limited government to protect Individuals’ rights.   The founding principle is that Individuals are endowed by their Creator with inalienable God-given rights.   Accordingly, Individual Rights are neither “granted” nor overturnable by government – precisely because they are God-given. 

Gun control infringes the God-given right of the Individuals.   The issue is not about the guns, hunting, or sports.   It is about the Individuals’ God-given right to protect themselves – from psychotic murderers to even a tyrannical government gone amok (as was necessary in America’s Revolutionary War for Independence).    

Marriage control equally infringes the God-given right of the Individuals.   Marriage pre-dates the invention of government.   Ironically, marriage controllers cite Adam and Eve from the Biblical book of Genesis.   Yet that very story never involved government.   In fact, no one in the Bible was ever married “by government.”   Plus, the author of that Genesis story married two wives himself.   Yes, polygamy – Moses was a polygamist.   Therefore, even the Adam and Eve account proves that marriage is an inalienable God-given right of the Individuals.   This is true even if the godless choose it or otherwise personally invent foolish re-definitions for their own imaginations.

Gun controllers believe that “society has a right” as a “democracy” to protect “the (collective) People” from the supposed dangers of law-abiding citizens choosing responsible firearm ownership.   And marriage controllers believe that “society has a right” as a “democracy” to protect “the (collective) People” from the supposed dangers of law-abiding citizens choosing real or imaginary marriage. 
 
In both debates, it comes down to big government control versus Individual Rights. 

Because gun controllers argue Individuals Rights during the marriage control debates, and because marriage controllers argue Individual Rights during the gun control debates, the solution is to mutually embrace the Constitutionalism of Individual Rights.  

Constitutionalists have always known this answer.   But will gun controllers and marriage controllers honor the Virginia Tech victims and now apply this solution together? 

From the Times Online (UK):

The Islamic State of Iraq was declared last autumn by a coalition of al-Qaeda-linked and hardcore Sunni insurgent groups. It is focused on Diyala province to the northeast of Baghdad, although it lays claim to six other governorates including Baghdad.

The aim of the “state” is to recreate a Sunni land in the image of Arabia at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, turning back the clock in a way that the Taleban tried to do in Afghanistan.

The puritanical movement enforces a rigorous version of Salafist Islam, banning men from shaving their beards, having short hair like American soldiers or even smoking. Men caught repeatedly smoking have their index fingers rammed into metal pipes and then snapped, while cigarette shops have been torched.

The rules have often been taken to absurd extremes. Greengrocers in the Caliphate told The Times they had been ordered not to sell bananas in public because they were deemed obscene, while for similar reasons cucumbers could not be sold next to tomatoes, which are deemed to represent femininity.

At the most extreme level, shepherds have even been ordered to cover the nether regions of their goats to avoid offending strict Salafist sensibilities. A doctor from Baquba who recently spoke to The Times said he always written off such absurd tales as rumours. But driving in a shared taxi through a village near the provincial capital of Diyala he saw a goat wearing boxer shorts and started laughing.

“The other passengers told me to shut up, or it could cost me my life,” he said.

Edicts have also been issued banning the use of ice, as the Prophet would not have had access to chilled water. While seemingly ridiculous, the rules are often enforced by brutal extremists who fail to see the absurd side of their regime.

So where in the U.S. media do we find these reports? Don’t let anyone tell you that the American “Religious Right” is “just as a bad” as the Islamic extremists. And it’s the leftists in this country that want to use force to stop people from smoking in this country.