North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[Caroljo]

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.

Brothers and sisters are humans aren't they?

I think Willow hit a nerve! Lol!

 

[koshergrl]

According to Kinsey, the darling of the left, incest was just "natural" sexuality, and A-OK. It's our laws against it that are wrong.

 

[Pheonixops]

Joe Peacock: Gay People Can't Marry in North Carolina, But Life Isn't Exactly Easy for Straight Couples, Either First Cousins can marry each other

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Brothers and sisters are humans aren't they?

I think Willow hit a nerve! Lol!

He's a basket case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, it does, unless we assume that minor children have no rights.

Guess we should deny the right to bear children to abusive red-necks too then.

Perhaps a test for an over-abundance of testosterone and lack of control?

Nice of you to assume that I am a redneck simply because I point out something somebody missed.

 

[initforme]

So gays dont live in NC. So what? Leave it up to the states. I could care less about gay marriage or about the backward state of NC.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet another example of right wing loons infringing on the right of others to pursue happiness.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet another example of right wing loons infringing on the right of others to pursue happiness.....

Yet another example of left wing idiocy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So gays dont live in NC. So what? Leave it up to the states. I could care less about gay marriage or about the backward state of NC.

OH the enlighten people who think North Carolina is backwards because the state does not recognize the sick perverted lifestyle of gay marriage.

 

[candycorn]

Why stomp on a man's liberty to marry his cousin or his sister? shit

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?

Do people like you reduce liberty for fun, or do you do it because you want everyone else to behave and make the same exact choices as you do?

.
.

Surgical.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And of course within the next few years the Supreme Court will invalidate the North Carolina amendment as un-Constitutional, along with other similar amendments and measures, for the following reasons:

First, the State fails to demonstrate a compelling reason justifying the preemption of same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to equal access to the law, including marriage law. The State must submit evidence in support of its amendment, this evidence must be factual, objective, and consistent:

The laws challenged in the cases…cited were narrow enough in scope and grounded in a sufficient factual context for us to ascertain that there existed some relation between the classification and the purpose it served. By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 181 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring) ("If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect .").

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Second, that marriage is perceived in a religious, historic, or traditional context is legally irrelevant:

It must be acknowledged [that for]…centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Last, the State may not be motivated by animus toward a particular class of persons when enacting laws, amendments, or other such measures, as to disadvantage that particular class:

[T]he amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and…invalid form of legislation. ts sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Obviously the majority of the people of the State of North Carolina are ignorant of the fact that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. That the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly, the fact of this is demonstrated by the amendment’s election results.

When the Supreme Court strikes down the North Carolina amendment, the opinion in that case will be very similar to the Romer opinion:

“We must conclude that [the amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [North Carolina] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [The amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage] violates the Equal Protection Clause…”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And of course within the next few years the Supreme Court will invalidate the North Carolina amendment as un-Constitutional, along with other similar amendments and measures, for the following reasons:

First, the State fails to demonstrate a compelling reason justifying the preemption of same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to equal access to the law, including marriage law. The State must submit evidence in support of its amendment, this evidence must be factual, objective, and consistent:

The laws challenged in the cases…cited were narrow enough in scope and grounded in a sufficient factual context for us to ascertain that there existed some relation between the classification and the purpose it served. By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 181 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring) ("If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect .").

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Second, that marriage is perceived in a religious, historic, or traditional context is legally irrelevant:

It must be acknowledged [that for]…centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Last, the State may not be motivated by animus toward a particular class of persons when enacting laws, amendments, or other such measures, as to disadvantage that particular class:

[T]he amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and…invalid form of legislation. ts sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Obviously the majority of the people of the State of North Carolina are ignorant of the fact that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. That the citizens of the Republic are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly, the fact of this is demonstrated by the amendment’s election results.

When the Supreme Court strikes down the North Carolina amendment, the opinion in that case will be very similar to the Romer opinion:

“We must conclude that [the amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [North Carolina] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [The amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage] violates the Equal Protection Clause…”

The supreme court must prove that people have a right too marry.

 

[candycorn]

M14, this is how I see it:
1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:
>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.

Well, that's all well and good, but it doesnt address the issue to which I speak

The argument put forth was that not allowing SSM violates equal protection.
As everyone is treated equally in this regard, with the same allowances and restructions, that cannot be true.

I wasn't participating in the equal protection approach this time, was just sharing my own thoughts on the matter. I suppose that's a different discussion.

.

It should be the only discussion;

If Jim marries Jane or if Jim marries John; it doesn't effect anyone of other than Jim, Jane or John.

Heterosexuals who are married, widowed, divorced, or single receive no penalty/advantage from what Jim does.

The political foolishness is this; Republicans and Conservatives are generally the ones who say they do not want government in our lives....it seems that is not the case if you look at the posts on this message board.

 

[Apeman4Truth]

I'm willing to bet 2 internets, that the guy who wrote this legislation in NC is yet one more self loasthing Republican closet case.

I'm willing to bet that you are also.

Wow! Is that an air farce merit badge? You must have some great stories about flying all over in some sleek fighter jets!

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet another example of right wing loons infringing on the right of others to pursue happiness.....

Yet another example of left wing idiocy.

Yet another example of a Windbag offering nothing to the debate...

 

[candycorn]

Degeneracy impairs the integrity of the whole. Have you personally been impacted by anything at all that goes on elsewhere? All the murders, rapes, extortions, frauds, molestations, abuse, prostitution, pornography, none of it impacts you personally. When we start accepting degeneracy as normal conduct, it moves from what they are doing to what we are doing. Gays and lesbians should live whatever lives they wish to as a matter of their personal right. When they demand that others change and accept their behavior as normal that's when the go beyond their own choices and move into affecting mine.

Well Katz – to put it simply, the act of two people marrying does NOT directly affect or infringe on the rights of any non-consenting third parties in the way that murder, rape, extortion, fraud, molestation, and prostitution would.

That’s my reply.

Also, I don't happen to consider the marriage between two people who love each other a form of "societal degeneracy".
.
.

About 1/2 of all marriages between heterosexuals end in divorce; this isn't counting (I don't think) the ones who simply live apart or are unhappy, have open relationships, etc...

Equating same-sex marriages with societal degeneracy is rather funny; the heteros beat the homos to it; it would seem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm willing to bet 2 internets, that the guy who wrote this legislation in NC is yet one more self loasthing Republican closet case.

I'm willing to bet that you are also.

Wow! Is that an air farce merit badge? You must have some great stories about flying all over in some sleek fighter jets!

merit badge? it something you could never wear.

 

[koshergrl]

Degeneracy impairs the integrity of the whole. Have you personally been impacted by anything at all that goes on elsewhere? All the murders, rapes, extortions, frauds, molestations, abuse, prostitution, pornography, none of it impacts you personally. When we start accepting degeneracy as normal conduct, it moves from what they are doing to what we are doing. Gays and lesbians should live whatever lives they wish to as a matter of their personal right. When they demand that others change and accept their behavior as normal that's when the go beyond their own choices and move into affecting mine.

Well Katz – to put it simply, the act of two people marrying does NOT directly affect or infringe on the rights of any non-consenting third parties in the way that murder, rape, extortion, fraud, molestation, and prostitution would.

That’s my reply.

Also, I don't happen to consider the marriage between two people who love each other a form of "societal degeneracy".
.
.

About 1/2 of all marriages between heterosexuals end in divorce; this isn't counting (I don't think) the ones who simply live apart or are unhappy, have open relationships, etc...

Equating same-sex marriages with societal degeneracy is rather funny; the heteros beat the homos to it; it would seem.

No, it's a symptom of society degeneracy, and it stems directly from Kinsey's barbarous Nazi studies that resulted in family laws, the penal code, and sex education changes the world over. It also resulted in the myths that are still circling today about what is "normal" (based on his studies of incarcerated sex offenders...pawned off on an unsuspecting public as a normal cross section of society). Kinsey's objective was to dissolve society as we know it, and substitute one more friendly to child molesters, Nazis, and eugenecists.

And he succeeded.

 

[KevinWestern]

Why stomp on a man's liberty to marry his cousin or his sister? shit

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?

Do people like you reduce liberty for fun, or do you do it because you want everyone else to behave and make the same exact choices as you do?

.
.

I can't speak for Willow...but being a Christian and believing what i do....i could not in good conscience vote to let gays marry. I get a lot of flack for this, but this is how i feel and i can't vote any other way. I would be going against everything i have ever believed, and against my God. If i get ridiculed and bashed because of it, oh well....but like i've said before, i have friends that are gay, i love them and their dear friends....but i don't have to love their lifestyle. They're good with that....

Fair enough (you're entitled to your civil opinion, and thank you for it) but I personally believe in the separation of church rules and state rules, and would prefer to choose the option of liberty over the option of a "big brother" type government that protects the population from committing sins against your own personal god.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Degeneracy impairs the integrity of the whole. Have you personally been impacted by anything at all that goes on elsewhere? All the murders, rapes, extortions, frauds, molestations, abuse, prostitution, pornography, none of it impacts you personally. When we start accepting degeneracy as normal conduct, it moves from what they are doing to what we are doing. Gays and lesbians should live whatever lives they wish to as a matter of their personal right. When they demand that others change and accept their behavior as normal that's when the go beyond their own choices and move into affecting mine.

Well Katz – to put it simply, the act of two people marrying does NOT directly affect or infringe on the rights of any non-consenting third parties in the way that murder, rape, extortion, fraud, molestation, and prostitution would.

That’s my reply.

Also, I don't happen to consider the marriage between two people who love each other a form of "societal degeneracy".
.
.

Actually, it does, unless we assume that minor children have no rights.

In the context of this discussion, we're talking about two consenting adult humans.

I don't recall anybody arguing anything related to minors.
.