North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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....

And that’s fine.

This also demonstrates why we have a Constitution and abide the rule of law, to protect all Americans from the tyranny of the majority – in this case the Christian majority.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Kosher - seriously - what the heck are you talking about? You're all over the place...

 

[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.

Kosher - seriously - what the heck are you talking about? You're all over the place...

Art said he was okay with incest between consenting adults.

I'm pointing out that he has that in common with Kinsey, the child molester who is the father of modern sexuality.

The ALEC Report on Kinsey

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Kosher - seriously - what the heck are you talking about? You're all over the place...

Art said he was okay with incest between consenting adults.

I'm pointing out that he has that in common with Kinsey, the child molester who is the father of modern sexuality.

The ALEC Report on Kinsey

Regardless, what's the point you're trying to make?

That incest is wrong/should be regulated?

The infinitely small portion of the population who wants to take part in that sort of activity will do so no matter what laws are in place.

That is unless, you mandate government bedroom cams - which is humorously a measure I actually think some Republicans would actually vote for.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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....

And that’s fine.

This also demonstrates why we have a Constitution and abide the rule of law, to protect all Americans from the tyranny of the majority – in this case the Christian majority.

When did the right too marry get placed as a protected right in the Constitution?

 

[koshergrl]

The point that I was trying to make was the point I made. People who de-stigmatize sexual deviancy have a role model in Kinsey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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…”

Lawrence v Texas doesn't apply. They are not making it illegal to practice homosexuality, or even for two people of the same sex to be married, they are just refusing to recognize such marriages. SCOTUS may very well overturn anti same sex marriage legislation at some point in the future, but they won't use the reasoning applied in Lawrence. Romer is probably closer to what they will use, but I doubt it will even be used as a precedent since it applies to the state denying individuals relief from discriminatory practices be carving out an exception to discrimination laws based on a discriminatory class.

Sounds really silly when I say it that way, doesn't it? But that is exactly what Amendment 2 did. The North Carolina vote yesterday doesn't even overturn a judicial action like Prop 8 did in California, it just encodes state law into the Constitution, which will make it a little harder to challenge.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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…”

You make many assumptions. First, you'll have a long row to hoe if you believe the SCOTUS will shift that far to the left in the next few decades. This will occur only if a far left wing President is elected( Obama) and the US Senate has a majority of the same political ideology. With the current majority ideology of the country being fiscally conservative somewhat religious center right leaning on social issues, such far left majority is unlikely.
As far as your legal research, well done. However, there is one thing you are missing. That is the issue of "compelling interest".
In other words, are we to scuttle hundreds of years of tradition and law to satisfy the compelling interest of so few? Should we as a people, be so arrogant so as to create special rights for those who self segregate themselves into a protected class?
While your ideas appear to be pure, the danger here is if your assumption comes to fruition, the resulting precedent could be in result disastrous to the entire fabric of our society. I believe no jurist, no matter how independent in their thinking would risk such an upheaval.
This notion of "if it feels good, do it" and "anything goes" defeats the purpose of a thinking morally based society for which laws were written for it's own protection in the first place.
The line MUST be drawn somewhere. This is the time when that occurs.
At the and of the day, the furor over the NC law escapes me. Thirty other states currently have similar laws banning non heterosexual couples from marrying.

 

[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.

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

I offered my opinion on this being about right wing loons in my own thread. If you think you can prove me wrong feel to pop in there and actually debate the point. All you did here was spout a soundbite, so I spouted one right back at you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.
.

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet another example of left wing idiocy.

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

I offered my opinion on this being about right wing loons in my own thread. If you think you can prove me wrong feel to pop in there and actually debate the point. All you did here was spout a soundbite, so I spouted one right back at you.

It was far from a soundbite...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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....

And that’s fine.

This also demonstrates why we have a Constitution and abide the rule of law, to protect all Americans from the tyranny of the majority – in this case the Christian majority.

Is it? Does that mean that Christians are protected from Obamacare forcing them to support things they object to, or does the protections of the constitution and the rule of law only extend to the things you like?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.
.

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

Total poppycock. A lot of gay couples do not have children. Of those who do, so what? A gay person cannot offer a nuturing, caring environment?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I offered my opinion on this being about right wing loons in my own thread. If you think you can prove me wrong feel to pop in there and actually debate the point. All you did here was spout a soundbite, so I spouted one right back at you.

It was far from a soundbite...

You might be right, I should apologize to sound bites for comparing them to your idiocy.

 

[Bigfoot]

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

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

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

Total poppycock. A lot of gay couples do not have children. Of those who do, so what? A gay person cannot offer a nuturing, caring environment?

We should keep the perverts away from all of our children.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

Total poppycock. A lot of gay couples do not have children. Of those who do, so what? A gay person cannot offer a nuturing, caring environment?

Um, where did I say that homosexuals cannot offer a nurturing environment? What I said was that the debate about marriage has to include the rights of children. Instead of assuming you know what my position is you should try reading what I say.

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

Total poppycock. A lot of gay couples do not have children. Of those who do, so what? A gay person cannot offer a nuturing, caring environment?

Um, where did I say that homosexuals cannot offer a nurturing environment? What I said was that the debate about marriage has to include the rights of children. Instead of assuming you know what my position is you should try reading what I say.

Then you have no point. Why should any debate about marriage have anything to do with children? hint, it shouldn't...

 

[KevinWestern]

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.
.

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

Apologies - I misunderstood you earlier.

So - obviously everyone has rights. But what are the rights, exactly, that you are talking about with regards to children and their parents, as it relates to this conversation about same-sex couples?

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you saying that no one who is getting married has children? I think that is a bit close minded of you.

The simple fact is that some people who are involved in same sex relationships have children, and that any talk of same sex marriage has to admit that, and admit that those children also have rights. I am pretty sure the entire rational for allowing the state to jump into regulating marriage in the first place can be boiled down to "It's for the children." That means that this debate has to include the rights of children to be realistic.

Total poppycock. A lot of gay couples do not have children. Of those who do, so what? A gay person cannot offer a nuturing, caring environment?

We should keep the perverts away from all of our children.

I agree

 

[Mr.Nick]

Well, there is a difference between marriage and civil unions.

I suppose I could care less if gays want civil unions, however I am opposed to gay marriage.

I view marriage as a religious based sacrament which has First Amendment implications...