In North Carolina next week, there is going to be a vote on Amendment One that defines marriage as between a Man and a Woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. Now NC already has a ban on gay marriage, but passing this would add the ban to the state constitution. Now by adding it to the constitution, it makes the chances of ever overturning it even more difficult than just legalizing it normally.
According to the articles I'm reading it reads as:
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
Now we all know that this is definitely being pushed by religious ideologies, and as of right now it is a very split decision, being around a 54% approve of the amendment and 45% disapprove of it.
So I'm not sure how to feel about it, because one could easily say that this is pushing religion upon those that are not religious, which would be in violation of the First Amendment. I just happened to see lots of 'discussion' on Facebook from both sides, and decided to see how you Escapists feel about the matter.
On a side note, do you think that marriage should be controlled by religion? As of right now it seems that religion has a 'monopoly' upon religion, which includes who they marry, and where they can marry.
Personally, I view marriage rights as part of basic civil rights, because founding a legally recognized family can arguably be considered one of the major parts of the pursuit of happiness. As long as marriage is a secular institution (which it is, even in the USA, considering Atheists marrying and inter-religious marriages are no problem, especially before a Justice of the Peace) with legal regulations tied to it, it must be available to everybody. So, no religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, not even in the USA[1], nor should it have. And I do not think civil rights should be up to a majority vote, ever. One quick question: Would a simple majority be sufficient to change the state's constitution? Or does it require more than 50.1%, like, say, 2/3 majority?
[1] For those interested: In Germany, the only legally recognized marriages are civil marriages. Religious people get their religious marriage ceremony in addition to their actual marriage. Also, despite that, Germany does not yet have full marriage equality, unfortunately, although I'd say we're farther ahead than many of the USA's states at least.
tendaji: On a side note, do you think that marriage should be controlled by religion?
No. It's a legal contract. Marriage was invented to make issues of estates, inheritance, succession, etc easier to deal with. If you choose to add a spiritual element to your marriage, then mazel tov. Just don't shove it down my throat.
tendaji: On a side note, do you think that marriage should be controlled by religion?
No. It's a legal contract. Marriage was invented to make issues of estates, inheritance, succession, etc easier to deal with. If you choose to add a spiritual element to your marriage, then mazel tov. Just don't shove it down my throat.
Well the reason I ask is because everytime you talk about gay marriage or marriage in general, the topic always ends up about religion and how 'sacred' marriage is, which makes me think that control of marriage basically ends up in the hands of the Church instead of the State at times. (Not in terms of the contract, but in name)
One quick question: Would a simple majority be sufficient to change the state's constitution? Or does it require more than 50.1%, like, say, 2/3 majority?
I'm not too sure, because it's a public ballot instead of being voted on in Congress, so I'm not sure if the same rules apply or not.
Due to the separation of Church and State in America, in theory all laws should have a non-religious justification. As there is only religious objections to gay marriage, the ban on it must be religious in nature and thus it's supporting a specific religion which is banned by the First Amendment.
My British friend, if my country followed the spirit of America, I'd live in a utopia[1].
However, Republicans skirt the separation of church and state by making the definition of the word itself the issue. While they argue against it BECAUSE of religion, actual lawmaker's use arguments based around the word itself revolving around one man and one woman. Which makes sense, really. I mean, it'd be weird if people started lobbying to make the word "pencil" mean "a man with a beard". It just makes no sense to care about it outside of religion.
[1] And our national anthem would be "Real American", but I digress.
That seems to be the case all the time right now during the Tea Party takeover of the United States. They've got Michigan into political lockdown and have been pumping daily poison into it.
They have no right to their ridiculous privilege and have the state back up their pathetic beliefs. How they can claim to be "bullied" by the "homosexual agenda", while pushing for bullying, privileged policies into law, is uncanny.
Considering that marriage is a word, I don't care if they have it. But if they want to own the word, so to speak, keep it far, far away from the state. Instead of granting special rights to heterosexuals.
tendaji: On a side note, do you think that marriage should be controlled by religion?
No. It's a legal contract. Marriage was invented to make issues of estates, inheritance, succession, etc easier to deal with. If you choose to add a spiritual element to your marriage, then mazel tov. Just don't shove it down my throat.
*internet high give* Nice one, sir. I agree. Though what do you think of polygamy?
Skeleon: Personally, I view marriage rights as part of basic civil rights, because founding a legally recognized family can arguably be considered one of the major parts of the pursuit of happiness.
Personally, I think blueberry muffins are a major part of the pursuit of happiness. Bu I digress...
OT: It's not about whether marriage is religious or secular, because it clearly can be both to different people, it's about whether marriage is law or not. There is absolutely no positive reason to have any law regarding or restricting marriage to any extent, so the only reason to have any law regarding it at all is to intentionally control the institution of the family.
Letting homosexuals into the marriage club only slightly expands the unnecessarily restrictive laws on marriage. Why does it have to be recognized by a specific office? Why is it only between two people? Why do taxes have anything to do with it? Why are there all these distictions and restrictions on what amounts to a contract between consenting parties? Get rid of that crap and everyone's happy except nobody will be because the truth is that every side just wants all of the others to be forced to accept their opinion.
Seekster: Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.
It'd only be hypocritical if they cheered New York if their reason for cheering was that it's a "state's rights issue" or some similar notion. It is not hypocritical if they cheered it because they think it's a civil rights issue.
EDIT:
tstorm823: Personally, I think blueberry muffins are a major part of the pursuit of happiness. Bu I digress...
Indeed. These are clearly issues of similar magnitude and impact on millions of people's lives. This ridiculous false equivalence isn't even really worth pointing out, everybody can see it for themselves, but if I quote it, maybe more people see that you did it and that's worth something, I expect.
My British friend, if my country followed the spirit of America, I'd live in a utopia
However, Republicans skirt the separation of church and state by making the definition of the word itself the issue. While they argue against it BECAUSE of religion, actual lawmaker's use arguments based around the word itself revolving around one man and one woman. Which makes sense, really. I mean, it'd be weird if people started lobbying to make the word "pencil" mean "a man with a beard". It just makes no sense to care about it outside of religion.
And our national anthem would be "Real American", but I digress..
That pretty sucky, I hope one day your Supreme Count liberalises enough to just declare it legal across all the states whether they want it or not. Over here it looks like we'll get gay marriage soon since all three main parties agree with the concept, they're just dithering right now over the technicalities :-P
Seekster: Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.
It'd only be hypocritical if they cheered New York if their reason for cheering was that it's a "state's rights" or some similar notion. It is not hypocritical if they cheered it because they think it's a civil rights issue.
. State's rights... lol. It was abused when some people wanted to keep Slavery and Segregation still operating - Now it's all about Abortion and Gay rights (And of course it all comes down to the second amendment).
Seekster: Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.
Why would somebody who thought this was a civil rights issue rather than a states' rights issue be a hypocrite for jeering NC but supporting NY? I don't see any hypocrisy there.
Although I suppose it's much more comforting to you to try and paint those who disagree with you as hypocrites.
Seekster: Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.
Oh yeah they're such massive hypocrites, having consistent opinions and aims, supporting equal rights everywhere.
*sigh* Looks like its time for our regular same-sex marriage debate.
Lets let Reagan kick things off:
"My criticsm is that the gay rights movement isnt just asking for civil rights; It's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I." -Ronald Reagan
Thats my issue, I have no problem making sure same sex couples have all their equal rights...that doesnt mean I have to acknowledge that union as a marriage.
TheIronRuler: Now it's all about Abortion and Gay rights (And of course it all comes down to the second amendment).
I think you missed the amendment number there, my friend. The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm kinda finding it hard to find anything about abortion, marriage equality, and LGBT rights in there.
Seekster: Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.
Oh yeah they're such massive hypocrites, having consistent opinions and aims, supporting equal rights everywhere.
*sigh* Looks like its time for our regular same-sex marriage debate.
Lets let Reagan kick things off:
"My criticsm is that the gay rights movement isnt just asking for civil rights; It's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I." -Ronald Reagan
Thats my issue, I have no problem making sure same sex couples have all their equal rights...that doesnt mean I have to acknowledge that union as a marriage.
. One can also say that he would not acknowledge religious marriage as a normal marriage in the USA and give it a special, other status. One for each religion, a Jewish Marriage, A Christian Marriage, a Muslim Marriage and so on and so forth. The moment you separate between them and you, you create segregation. "Don't let the blacks in my school!... They can still have equal rights, I just don't want my kids studying with black kids!".
TheIronRuler: Now it's all about Abortion and Gay rights (And of course it all comes down to the second amendment).
I think you missed the amendment number there, my friend. The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm kinda finding it hard to find anything about abortion, marriage equality, and LGBT rights in there.
. Sorry about that you must have misread me, I meant to say that the rights of a person to bear arms is disputed and is very tightly regulated in some states while very lenient in others and it sometimes gets pulled into the argument. Should I rephrase that?
Who are they hurting, if it is two consenting adults, does it matter if they are both men or both women? Why if they love each other cannot they have the same legal rights and recognition?
It doesn't matter if the various religions recognise it. It's none of their bloody business. Remove religion from the marriage legalities. Have it so it's all civil unions and if you want religion involved you go do it yourself after you have gotten the legal contract.
TheIronRuler: Now it's all about Abortion and Gay rights (And of course it all comes down to the second amendment).
I think you missed the amendment number there, my friend. The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm kinda finding it hard to find anything about abortion, marriage equality, and LGBT rights in there.
. Sorry about that you must have misread me, I meant to say that the rights of a person to bear arms is disputed and is very tightly regulated in some states while very lenient in others and it sometimes gets pulled into the argument. Should I rephrase that?
Ah, I can see what you were trying to say then. That's good. Glad I got that cleared up. I thought you might be talking about the 14th Amendment
Although, I think the only reason it's addressed in the states is because there aren't enough votes on the federal level for any far-reaching gun control laws.
That pretty sucky, I hope one day your Supreme Count liberalises enough to just declare it legal across all the states whether they want it or not. Over here it looks like we'll get gay marriage soon since all three main parties agree with the concept, they're just dithering right now over the technicalities :-P
The Federal government forcing states to do something they don't want? Uhhh, we fought a war over that. Only then, "gay marriage" was called "abolition". Believe me, as soon as we start forcing people to do things, the South starts singing this again:
I'm just glad I live in a Northern sta-oh, wait, Arkansas. Hm. Oh well, at least my soon to be new state anthem is catchy. "I caughts the rheumatism/a-camping in the snow/but I killed a chance of Yankees/and I'd like to kill some mo'".
Seekster: Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.
Oh yeah they're such massive hypocrites, having consistent opinions and aims, supporting equal rights everywhere.
*sigh* Looks like its time for our regular same-sex marriage debate.
Lets let Reagan kick things off:
"My criticsm is that the gay rights movement isnt just asking for civil rights; It's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I." -Ronald Reagan
Thats my issue, I have no problem making sure same sex couples have all their equal rights...that doesnt mean I have to acknowledge that union as a marriage.
No one's asking you to consider it marriage if you're that bothered, they just want to make it law that they aren't discriminated against. Quoting Reagan doesn't help your argument, he's just a dude, there are 300 million people in your country with their own opinions. And the quote is just wrong, they're asking for recognition of the same lifestyle as everyone else.
I know my mother is voting in favor of the amendment and I'm against it. While I agree that gay marrige shouldn't be legal this bill does so much harm to unmarried people.
DJjaffacake: Oh yeah they're such massive hypocrites, having consistent opinions and aims, supporting equal rights everywhere.
*sigh* Looks like its time for our regular same-sex marriage debate.
Lets let Reagan kick things off:
"My criticsm is that the gay rights movement isnt just asking for civil rights; It's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I." -Ronald Reagan
Thats my issue, I have no problem making sure same sex couples have all their equal rights...that doesnt mean I have to acknowledge that union as a marriage.
No one's asking you to consider it marriage if you're that bothered, they just want to make it law that they aren't discriminated against. Quoting Reagan doesn't help your argument, he's just a dude, there are 300 million people in your country with their own opinions. And the quote is just wrong, they're asking for recognition of the same lifestyle as everyone else.
No Reagan is right, I know he is just a dude...but he is a very clever and wise dude.
I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to heterosexuals to homosexuals. If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.
That pretty sucky, I hope one day your Supreme Count liberalises enough to just declare it legal across all the states whether they want it or not. Over here it looks like we'll get gay marriage soon since all three main parties agree with the concept, they're just dithering right now over the technicalities :-P
The Federal government forcing states to do something they don't want? Uhhh, we fought a war over that. Only then, "gay marriage" was called "abolition". Believe me, as soon as we start forcing people to do things, the South starts singing this again:
I'm just glad I live in a Northern sta-oh, wait, Arkansas. Hm. Oh well, at least my soon to be new state anthem is catchy. "I caughts the rheumatism/a-camping in the snow/but I killed a chance of Yankees/and I'd like to kill some mo'".
The American Civil War wasn't about abolition, my friend.
*sigh* Looks like its time for our regular same-sex marriage debate.
Lets let Reagan kick things off:
"My criticsm is that the gay rights movement isnt just asking for civil rights; It's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I." -Ronald Reagan
Thats my issue, I have no problem making sure same sex couples have all their equal rights...that doesnt mean I have to acknowledge that union as a marriage.
No one's asking you to consider it marriage if you're that bothered, they just want to make it law that they aren't discriminated against. Quoting Reagan doesn't help your argument, he's just a dude, there are 300 million people in your country with their own opinions. And the quote is just wrong, they're asking for recognition of the same lifestyle as everyone else.
No Reagan is right, I know he is just a dude...but he is a very clever and wise dude.
I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to heterosexuals to homosexuals. If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.
Reagan is right in your opinion. "I have no problem with the same rules being applied to gay and straight people, except the rules on marriage." How does this make any sense?
In North Carolina next week, there is going to be a vote on Amendment One that defines marriage as between a Man and a Woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Now NC already has a ban on gay marriage, but passing this would add the ban to the state constitution. Now by adding it to the constitution, it makes the chances of ever overturning it even more difficult than just legalizing it normally.
According to the articles I'm reading it reads as:
Now we all know that this is definitely being pushed by religious ideologies, and as of right now it is a very split decision, being around a 54% approve of the amendment and 45% disapprove of it.
So I'm not sure how to feel about it, because one could easily say that this is pushing religion upon those that are not religious, which would be in violation of the First Amendment. I just happened to see lots of 'discussion' on Facebook from both sides, and decided to see how you Escapists feel about the matter.
On a side note, do you think that marriage should be controlled by religion? As of right now it seems that religion has a 'monopoly' upon religion, which includes who they marry, and where they can marry.