North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You miss my point. But, that's OK.

 

[PredFan]

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

Unfortunately, I think this issue will be with us for a very long time. The numbers on this issue will wax and wane and it will continue to be a distraction from the more important issues in this country.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

The marriage itself is not the question.

The question is the additional rights, privileges, and benefits granted to married couples by the Federal and State governments, which include tax breaks, child and family benefits, inheritance rules, adoption laws, next of kin status, etc etc etc.

If one group is being denied said rights and benefits, then Equal Protection is specifically NOT satisfied.

I don't really care if you call it "marriage" or not, personally. It's the rights inferred by marriage that are the issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

orth Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.


Read more: North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage | Fox News










Is evolver in chief too late?

Yeah! One more example of the New Right suppressing the Freedom and Liberties of a minority of our citizens. Ya gotta love those North Carolinians, real Americans (the last sentence [you do know what a sentence is, don't you Willow Tree?] is sarcasm (you can look up sarcasm at dictionary.com).

New Right?

Same sex marriage has lost every single time it has gone up for a vote, even in 2008 in California. Blaming that on the New Right, whatever that is supposed to be, just shows your unwillingness to accept the fact that you are a social outlier. and not the cetrist you imagine yourself to be.

 

[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.

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.

But marriage predates this and any other government. Government didn't create marriage. It has only become a legal institution recently, and mostly because of the revenue it brings in to the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

But marriage predates this and any other government. Government didn't create marriage. It has only become a legal institution recently, and mostly because of the revenue it brings in to the government.

Yes... and...?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And yet still not ONE valid reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry. Not one. Shame on all of you.

I sill haven't seen a valid reason why the state should be regulating marriage in the first place. If you ever come up with one of those we can then discuss who it applies to and who i doesn't, until then the debate is about something else entirely.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

I liked his last little whine.. "even if you disagree with me you don't have to leave me" supplication much?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The marriage itself is not the question.

It was in the post I responded to.

The question is the additional rights, privileges, and benefits granted to married couples by the Federal and State governments, which include tax breaks, child and family benefits, inheritance rules, adoption laws, next of kin status, etc etc etc.

If one group is being denied said rights and benefits, then Equal Protection is specifically NOT satisfied.

Yes... and as I said:
Everyone is allowed to marry in exactly the same manner as everyone else; everyne is denied marriage in exactly the same manner as everyone else.
As such, equal protection is satisfied.

 

[PredFan]

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.

If it's so clear and as simple as you say, then why is it happening in more and more states? Why is it being allowed to go unchecked. I'm not buying it.

 

[PredFan]

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.

You don't think that that is going to cause blacks who supported Obama in 2008 to switch to Romney do you? Don't hold your breath till that happens.

 

[Vast LWC]

But marriage predates this and any other government. Government didn't create marriage. It has only become a legal institution recently, and mostly because of the revenue it brings in to the government.

That is simply untrue.

Marriage has been a legal contract since Roman times, starting with legal definitions of inheritance.

During the middle ages, such matters were generally ruled over by ecclesiastical courts, as the Catholic Church preformed many functions that would now be the domain of the state.

But the state has generally been recording and setting rules for marriage since the Protestant Reformation of the 1600's. And in England, in 1753, Lord Hardwicke's Act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You don't think that that is going to cause blacks who supported Obama in 2008 to switch to Romney do you? Don't hold your breath till that happens.

False premise: That for Romney to win, The Obama's supporters must vote for Romney.
All they need do is not vote for The Obama.

IIRC, the CA SSM propositon vote result was driven in large part by minorities who supported Obama. That this may change some of their minds about The Secular messiah is not far-fetched.

 

[PredFan]

But marriage predates this and any other government. Government didn't create marriage. It has only become a legal institution recently, and mostly because of the revenue it brings in to the government.

That is simply untrue.

Marriage has been a legal contract since Roman times, starting with legal definitions of inheritance.

During the middle ages, such matters were generally ruled over by ecclesiastical courts, as the Catholic Church preformed many functions that would now be the domain of the state.

But the state has generally been recording and setting rules for marriage since the Protestant Reformation of the 1600's. And in England, in 1753, Lord Hardwicke's Act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.

I stand corrected.

 

[Vast LWC]

It was in the post I responded to.

Yes... and as I said:
Everyone is allowed to marry in exactly the same manner as everyone else; everyne is denied marriage in exactly the same manner as everyone else.
As such, equal protection is satisfied.

Everyone is allowed to marry whom they wish to marry, the same way as everyone else?

I think not.

I'm sure people said the same thing about inter-racial marriage too.

 

[PredFan]

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.

You don't think that that is going to cause blacks who supported Obama in 2008 to switch to Romney do you? Don't hold your breath till that happens.

False premise: That for Romney to win, The Obama's supporters must vote for Romney.
All they need do is not vote for The Obama.

IIRC, the CA SSM propositon vote result was driven in large part by minorities who supported Obama. That this may change some of their minds about The Secular messiah is not far-fetched.

I hope that you are right.

 

[Ravi]

orth Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.


Read more: North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage | Fox News










Is evolver in chief too late?

Yeah! One more example of the New Right suppressing the Freedom and Liberties of a minority of our citizens. Ya gotta love those North Carolinians, real Americans (the last sentence [you do know what a sentence is, don't you Willow Tree?] is sarcasm (you can look up sarcasm at dictionary.com).

New Right?

Same sex marriage has lost every single time it has gone up for a vote, even in 2008 in California. Blaming that on the New Right, whatever that is supposed to be, just shows your unwillingness to accept the fact that you are a social outlier. and not the cetrist you imagine yourself to be.

It could also be possible that people that don't believe we are constitutionally allowed to vote on people's rights simply don't vote.

 

[PredFan]

You all don't know how uncomfortable it is for me being on the saem side as liberals. When I say uncomfortable, I mean it gives me the screaming heebee jeebees!

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was in the post I responded to.

Yes... and as I said:
Everyone is allowed to marry in exactly the same manner as everyone else; everyne is denied marriage in exactly the same manner as everyone else.
As such, equal protection is satisfied.

Everyone is allowed to marry whom they wish to marry, the same way as everyone else?
I think not.

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

 

[Mr Natural]

What's the big fucking deal if two guys (or two girls) want to tie the knot?