North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[bigrebnc1775]

Good for North Carolina. The U.S. should add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a women.

No it should be left up to the state If the federal government had a constitutional amendment on marriage that would mean all those gay marriages would be void

 

[M14 Shooter]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

Since when is there a right to be married?

There is none and in fact there cannot be.

Marriage, as a legal entity, exists because the state created it, and exists so long as the laws that create it are in place - repeal those laws, and marriage as a legal institution, ceases to ecist.

As such, marriage can only be a privilege as the state cannot create rights and rights cannot be repealed.

 

[KevinWestern]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

The State AND Federal Government should get out of the business of defining marriage all together. They should issue civil unions (for legal purposes) to those who want to build a life around each other, but that should be the extent.

So...

(1) People could be in a civil union, but not married
(2) People could be married, but not in a civil union

The issue is (2), where a husband/wife does not have the privileges of a husband/wife unless they pettition the state.

Perhaps I’m missing your point (sorry if I’m not answering your question)…

Man/woman will not be recognized as “together” or as a “couple” until they apply for a civil union with the state.

 

[PredFan]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

Why are you "intrigued"?

The two are not mutually exclusive. The people of North Carolina are using the state to force people to live according to their views. I believe that the state should be out of it altogether, but since that is no longer an option then we work with what we have.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

KevinWestern and CandyCorn;
Let me first say that I am very pleased at such a civil discourse regarding an issue that is not an easy one. Make no mistake about it, the requirement to define marriage is one that I would certainly prefer was not within the purview of government. However, it is (we have already discussed why) and as such it requires the application of standards which ARE NOT universal, not even remotely 'the truth' for everyone, and as any such endeavor by its very nature, unable to satisfy everyone's desire. I absolutely DO understand your positions regarding same-sex marriages. I appreciate your stance and know that you believe it is a basic issue of rights. I have always felt that those who argue well for their point of view, is NOT my foe.

KevinWestern refers to the application of the 'slippery slope' argument. Perhaps those that would take advantage of such an opening are very small. However, there is nothing in this world that will allow me to wrap my head around such things as under-age marriages (perhaps even those that are forced), incestuous relationships, and other such affronts to a civilized society. In my very humble opinion, I find each of those to be beyond the pale and even one should be pursued and the aggressor found and prosecuted. An open definition of marriage, to be determined by those who are to engage in the institution, would permit these and I can assure you there would be those who would take advantage of a hole in the law to engage in one. For example, we have read instances where a mother has tried to 'sell' a child for drugs, etc. Imagine a society that allows that sort of ‘sale’ as they do in some Middle Eastern countries? But you are right, same-sex marriage can be just as dedicated and just as loving as a heterosexual relationship, is NOT in this same vein, it is just a reason WHY I believe that marriage must be specifically defined.

A man is homeless, living on the street and he hasn’t eaten for two days. He walks into a convenience store and he takes a loaf of bread. The law is clear. The man has committed theft, however, there probably isn’t very many of us here that would want that man prosecuted. I would imagine that most of us would pay the store for the loaf of bread and do something to ensure that the man receives the help that he needs. But we don’t codify the exception. Theft is theft, and the man has failed to do what he needs to do to get the help he needs. The reason for the exception to such a clear law is morality. As moral people, we don’t hold this man responsible for the possibly temporary issues that he has. If he does it every day for a month, then perhaps we would insist that the law be strictly applied. We might even demand that he be prosecuted for each of the thirty loaves he has stolen. Morality enters into almost everything we do in society, certainly the law. To allow something that offends my morality is no more acceptable than me passing a law against something that you find acceptable. Except in the case of a democratic process, the only way to settle diametrically opposing issues is for the side with the most people who feel a certain way to set the issue. North Carolina and Oklahoma as well as 30+ states, a majority of the population finds same-sex marriage immoral and therefore does not want it codified into law.

If you are waiting for me to tell you that this is the way it should be and that is final… then you will wait for a very long time. It is, at least for me, a very troubling issue and one that I wrestled with for quite a while before coming to a conclusion. But I feel as though the answer that I arrived at is correct. The very weight of the issue requires a certain introspection… and prayer… lots and lots of prayer.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

Equal protection, moron.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is it time for gays to give up the line that a majority of Americans support same sex marriage?

 

[WillowTree]

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

Oh goody then sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry.. We're moving right along in this equal rights thingy..

Considering you sound so inbred that you could be a sandwich, I'm surprised you aren't arguing for that.

why shouldn't we argue that, we're arguing equal rights aren't we? why can't a sister and a brother marry if they love each other and are both consenting adults? You pig.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The State AND Federal Government should get out of the business of defining marriage all together. They should issue civil unions (for legal purposes) to those who want to build a life around each other, but that should be the extent.

So...

(1) People could be in a civil union, but not married
(2) People could be married, but not in a civil union

The issue is (2), where a husband/wife does not have the privileges of a husband/wife unless they pettition the state.

Perhaps I’m missing your point (sorry if I’m not answering your question)…

Man/woman will not be recognized as “together” or as a “couple” until they apply for a civil union with the state.

But you stipulate tha marriage would still exist, withing progate institutions.

Thus, people can still be husband/wife, but without the benefits of same.

In effect, your proposal elminates marriage.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Good for North Carolina. The U.S. should add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a women.

No it should be left up to the state If the federal government had a constitutional amendment on marriage that would mean all those gay marriages would be void

Man you're dense. Several State Supreme Courts have already determined that your ignorance of what equal protection mean is based on your homophobia, I can't see why you don't get it. Are you a closet case?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

Why are you "intrigued"?
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because of the laws that create it.
If the government removes itself from marriage, then it must repeal all of its laws to that effect.
Doing so eliminates all of the rights/privileges related to marriage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

Equal protection, moron.

Who is being denied EP?

 

[KevinWestern]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

The State AND Federal Government should get out of the business of defining marriage all together. They should issue civil unions (for legal purposes) to those who want to build a life around each other, but that should be the extent.

Leave the specifics and the defining of acceptable social "norms" up to whatever private institutions or communities you happen to be a part of.

We all aught to be able to choose.

.

What are you doing to make that happen?

Good question. Besides supporting various marriage equality groups and Libertarians politicians here and there with monetary donations, not much.


.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Oh goody then sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry.. We're moving right along in this equal rights thingy..

Considering you sound so inbred that you could be a sandwich, I'm surprised you aren't arguing for that.

why shouldn't we argue that, we're arguing equal rights aren't we? why can't a sister and a brother marry if they love each other and are both consenting adults? You pig.

Go ahead and start a thread, skank. Personally, I don't care if you get pleasured by donkeys. If you choose to leave your money to your poodle, go for it.

Are you really too fucking stupid to know what HUMAN rights mean?

I could give a counter argument about your clear inbreeding, based on science, but an idiot like yourself would claim science is a joke.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Good for North Carolina. The U.S. should add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a women.

No it shouldn't. It's not an issue for the federal government to be involved in. We have 50 states for a reason.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is none and in fact there cannot be.

Marriage, as a legal entity, exists because the state created it, and exists so long as the laws that create it are in place - repeal those laws, and marriage as a legal institution, ceases to ecist.

As such, marriage can only be a privilege as the state cannot create rights and rights cannot be repealed.

Allowing some to marry, and others not to, and then giving preferential treatment to those people who are married, is clearly in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Whether marriage is a "right" or not, matters not. Giving benefits to one group of people and not allowing another group of people to enjoy said benefits is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.


Therefore:

In any state where homosexual marriage is illegal, the law is clear:

All Federal rights, protections, and benefits normally applied to married couples must be nullified for ALL married couples, married in that state.

This is a no brainer. The Federal part can pretty much be enacted by the Executive Branch effective immediately.

This will of course include all tax breaks for families and married couples in these states.

 

[PredFan]

Since when is there a right to be married?

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

Dick tuck did you get dick fucked really hard last night? Let's take a look at the 10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

You always hear liberals trying to spin the 10th into whatever they want.

 

[KevinWestern]

So...

(1) People could be in a civil union, but not married
(2) People could be married, but not in a civil union

The issue is (2), where a husband/wife does not have the privileges of a husband/wife unless they pettition the state.

Perhaps I’m missing your point (sorry if I’m not answering your question)…

Man/woman will not be recognized as “together” or as a “couple” until they apply for a civil union with the state.

But you stipulate tha marriage would still exist, withing progate institutions.

Thus, people can still be husband/wife, but without the benefits of same.

In effect, your proposal elminates marriage.

In effect, my proposal eliminates the government’s use of the word marriage. The word marriage will still exist in the churches, and all of the other private institutions that we choose to be a part of. “Marriage Privatization”?

For the record too, I’d be perfectly content with “marriage equality” at the government level (which essential what my proposal is – only it’s called “civil union”), however I just don’t think that’s possible at this time due to the people who want to keep their monopoly hold on the term itself.

..

 

[Katzndogz]

obama was pressured into coming out and now supports same sex marriage.

YAYYYYYYY. He finally said it.

He is done, Start practicing saying President Romney.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is none and in fact there cannot be.

Marriage, as a legal entity, exists because the state created it, and exists so long as the laws that create it are in place - repeal those laws, and marriage as a legal institution, ceases to ecist.

As such, marriage can only be a privilege as the state cannot create rights and rights cannot be repealed.

Allowing some to marry, and others not to, and then giving preferential treatment to those people who are married, is clearly in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

THis is irrelevant in the discussionas to the "right" to marry.

But, to address your point - everyone is allowed to marry in exactly the same manner as everyone else, and as such, equal protection is satisfied.