North Carolina Amendment One "1 Man, 1 Woman"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:

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.

You do realise that Amendment 1 wouldn't just ban same-sex marriage, but also civil unions, domestic partnerships, unregistered cohabitation, and any and all relationship recognition for gay couples, or any relationship that isn't a marriage between one man and one woman, right? It would add NC to the list of 20+ states that also have constitutional bans on legally recognising gay relationships through alternative systems like civil unions.

ReservoirAngel:

Seekster:
Its was never discriminatory before and its not discriminatory now.

Actually, it is. When you're specifically fighting for "traditional marriage" just so gay people can't get married, that is discrimination. Which is what this entire fight is. No matter how people may dress it up, it's not about "we need to make and keep marriage a sacred thing", it's about "we don't want to share our stuff with those gay people." Hence, discrimination.

If you really believed in the sacred bond of marriage, you wouldn't be fighting to stop people who love each other from having that same bond. You'd only be fighting like this if you just didn't want gay people to have that.

So yes, it is discriminatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByP2pQSbSmE

Seriously though thats not why I support traditional marriage. I am sorry you feel the need to morph this into something that makes your side into the victims here but thats simply not the way it is.

Lilani:

Seekster:
I personally consider marriage to be a union between one man and one woman, and ideally one that lasts for life.

A civil union is a purely legal construct while marriage is primarily a social institution but can also have legal and religious significance though does not necessarily need to have legal or religious significance.

If two people love each other enough to want to spend their entire lives together I think that is a beatiful thing. However I consider a marriage to be a union of one man and one woman and most homosexuals I understand do not want to spend their entire lives living with someone of the opposite sex. Their union is fine and dandy (though I'd be lying if said I didnt find that lifestyle unorthodox, its none of my business what two adults do in the privacy of their own home) but its just not a marriage. Its similar to a fraternity and a sorority. A group of college guys living in a frat house is all fine and dandy but its simply not a sorority, its a fraternity. It has a different name because it is different. Its not that one is better than the other, its just different.

Why isn't it a marriage? You're going to say later in another quote to me that it's time we started accepting unions to be basically the same as marriages. Why not cut out the middle man and make them the same? If you want them to be on equal ground, why keep them separated at all? You're still achieving the same end. It isn't tainting the meaning, legitimacy, or status of hetero marriages, just as people getting married within 48 hours of meeting each other in Las Vegas doesn't taint the marriage of a couple who has given it 10 years of thought.

Seekster:
Marriage has long been the union of one man and one woman in this country. It wasnt a way to make life hard for homosexuals, its just what marriage has always been. If you want to change it thats fine, I don't but we can vote on these things. All I am saying is that its not discriminating against homosexuals to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. To say that is is would be a very twisted world view and would betray a serious victim complex.

And until 1865, people in this country had long been allowed to own slaves. Until 1857, black people in this country had long been not allowed to be citizens. Until 1870, there had been no laws to keep you from discriminating and abridging other's rights by race. Until 1920, women in this country had long been not legitimate voting citizens. Until 1951, long standing tradition gave Presidents no term limits. Until 1920, alcohol had long been a legal substance in the US. Then in 1933 they realized that was a horrible idea and switched it back.

My point here is that long standing traditions are not a reason to keep things the way they are. We will always know how things were via history books. And now with the Internet, we will have the most immense back-catalogue of the random thoughts of how people all around the world felt about things. Perhaps in the way you define and distinguish homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but I'm not seeing the pattern of logic. The only way I can see that working is if you simply don't believe that two consensual adults who are of the same sex can love each other and be in a long-term relationship that deserves the status of a marriage. You place the couples on two different levels, which I would interpret as discrimination. The only reason those different levels could exist is because of what gender they are. If that's not correct, then please correct me, because I really don't get your thinking :-\

You are asking an odd question. Its not a marriage because its not a marriage. My computer is not a typewriter because it is not a typewriter. I am not sure how else to answer this.

I know the LGBT community likes to pretend that it is the latest in a long line of groups struggling against oppression but its rather insulting to African-Americans for example for the gay rights movement to compare itself to the civil rights movement. Yes homosexuals have faced injustices, yes there is still discrimination, yes progress should be made, but the degree to which the LGBT community faces discrimination cannot even begin to be compared to that of the African-American community during the 60s and 70s. As for myself I support equal rights for homosexuals. That does not included legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Its was never discriminatory before and its not discriminatory now.

There was no fucking definition of marriage before. In fact, marriage wasn't even about love, commitment or men and women. It was used as a means to solidify alliances and gain political standing. The ONLY reason the gay community didn't participate in that shit was because HOMOSEXUALS WERE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY VIRTUALLY EVERY FUCKING ONE.

The current definition was implement SPECIFICALLY with the purpose of excluding homosexuals. Besides, who the fuck cares about that shit? The fact of the matter is marriage gives straight couples privileges that are not available to gay couples. How is THAT not discriminatory? Predicted response: "OH MY GAWEDD PAERCY WHY U SO STUPIDEZ THE GHEY CAN MARAES STREGHT PPL!!1111".

Seekster:
No rights are being violated by the traditional definition of marriage.

It violates human rights.

Seekster:
Anti-misegenation laws were added onto traditional marriage specifically to discriminate against African-Americans

AND THE CURRENT DEFINITION WAS ADDED WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS.

Seekster:
Actually yes the USA had the ratify amendments to the Constitution to give black people rights and later had to pass civil rights legislation to give blacks equal rights.

Further proof that the US legal system is working as intended. I mean shit, when it's up for vote whether or not you're a fucking human being how can it not be the bestest ever?

Our conversation is over until you clean the foam from your mouth Percy.

ten.to.ten:

Seekster:

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.

You do realise that Amendment 1 wouldn't just ban same-sex marriage, but also civil unions, domestic partnerships, unregistered cohabitation, and any and all relationship recognition for gay couples, or any relationship that isn't a marriage between one man and one woman, right? It would add NC to the list of 20+ states that also have constitutional bans on legally recognising gay relationships through alternative systems like civil unions.

Hmm...that would change my view on it...do you have a source that says this...a reliable (ie not from Huffington or some progressive blog).

Edit:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_GAY_MARRIAGE_BILLY_GRAHAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-02-19-43-50

It seems Billy Graham has come out in support of Amendment 1. I could find no mention that the amendment would do anything other than say marriage is between one man and one woman (such language would not effect civil unions or anything other than marriage) but I have not yet seen the text itself.

Seekster:
Hmm...that would change my view on it...do you have a source that says this...a reliable (ie not from Huffington or some progressive blog).

Here's the text of the bill that approved the Amendment 1 ballot measure: http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v3.pdf

The full name of the bill is "AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE." (pardon the all caps, I was just pasting it as it was written)

SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:
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.

The bill goes on to say that it won't prohibit individuals from entering into "private contracts", but no relationships other than marriages between one man and one woman would be recognised by the state or given any state benefits.

Seekster:
Seriously though thats not why I support traditional marriage. I am sorry you feel the need to morph this into something that makes your side into the victims here but thats simply not the way it is.

Your attention to detail is astounding. I stand in awe at how a single man is capable of putting this much thought and effort into his replies.

Seekster:
I know the LGBT community likes to pretend that it is the latest in a long line of groups struggling against oppression but its rather insulting to African-Americans for example for the gay rights movement to compare itself to the civil rights movement.

A white, straight, conservative, Christian, middle class, American wants to talk about civil rights. Go on, I'm fucking listening.

Seekster:
Yes homosexuals have faced injustices

To put it mildly.

Seekster:
but the degree to which the LGBT community faces discrimination cannot even begin to be compared to that of the African-American community during the 60s and 70s.

You're right, it's not comparable. Gays could hide their homosexuality, blacks couldn't hide their skin colour. The consequences for being either were equally dire, however.

Seekster:
That does not included legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

"I want black people to be equal to whites but that doesn't mean I want them entering my shops, eating my food and playing with my children."

Seekster:
Our conversation is over until you clean the foam from your mouth Percy.

Just to fuck with your attempt at using an ad hominem I'm going to make sure my reply to you is in every comment I make towards your bile from now on.

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

*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.

He got you into a massive debt, he said a bunch of bullshit about socialised health care, his "accomplishments" boiled down to being in the right place at the right time as the Soviet Union was breaking up, really the only thing he was being good at was making people think he was awesome, not suprising for a former actor.

I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to whites to blacks. If a state wishes to go further and expand equal rights to include blacks, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

I 1950'd your post for you. Seriously, turn the clock back six decades and tell me if your argument against homosexual marriage is not the same as the arguments againt interacial marriage or equal rights back in the 50s.

Seekster:
I know the LGBT community likes to pretend that it is the latest in a long line of groups struggling against oppression but its rather insulting to African-Americans for example for the gay rights movement to compare itself to the civil rights movement. Yes homosexuals have faced injustices, yes there is still discrimination, yes progress should be made, but the degree to which the LGBT community faces discrimination cannot even begin to be compared to that of the African-American community during the 60s and 70s. As for myself I support equal rights for homosexuals. That does not included legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

No.

Children as young as 13 continue to commit suicide because they cannot possibly see a future where they are happy, because they are gay?

Maybe the LGBTQ community hasn't experienced exactly what African Americans experienced, but it's the fucking principle of the matter. People are being persecuted for immutable traits. It shouldn't be a matter of degree, and turning the issue into some kind of perverse dick-waving contest about who was discriminated against more... Everyone is hurt.

Injustice is injustice, and everyone should be thinking critically about why it still exists.

(What I'm getting at with that last sentence: maybe the fact that marriage/children/society are always portrayed as something needing to be protected from LGBTQ people perpetuates and gives credence to this idea that "queerness is terrible".)

Oh, and I'd like to see someone try to argue about the immutable thing right now, as I have 6 books analyzing ex-gay philosophy in front of me at this very moment.

First off, Percy I am adding you to my ignore list because you are getting angry on me and I don't want to risk responding to you in a way that might get me in trouble with the mods. Our conversation ended on the last page.

ten.to.ten:

Seekster:
Hmm...that would change my view on it...do you have a source that says this...a reliable (ie not from Huffington or some progressive blog).

Here's the text of the bill that approved the Amendment 1 ballot measure: http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v3.pdf

The full name of the bill is "AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE." (pardon the all caps, I was just pasting it as it was written)

SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:
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.

The bill goes on to say that it won't prohibit individuals from entering into "private contracts", but no relationships other than marriages between one man and one woman would be recognised by the state or given any state benefits.

I get where you are coming from but it seems pretty clear that the amendment is only talking about marriage and this is repeated several times in the text.

And Shaoken didnt say anything worth replying to so goody less typing for me.

Seekster:
I get where you are coming from but it seems pretty clear that the amendment is only talking about marriage and this is repeated several times in the text.

It is unambiguously intended to forbid any and all relationship recognition for gay couples in North Carolina, including but not limited to civil unions. It is as clear as day, by saying that no relationship other than a marriage between one man and one woman will be legally recognised by the state, recognising anything else, like civil unions or domestic partnerships, will be unconstitutional. That it was it was designed to do, it is widely understood, it can't be more clear.

@Seekster: I took a look at the language of other constitutional amendments banning not just gay marriage but civil unions and other similar contracts, let's compare:

Amendment 1 in North Carolina:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

With...

Amendment 2 in Florida:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

State Proposal 04-2 in Michigan:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

Measure 1 in North Dakota:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Amendment 1 in Kansas:
(a) Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.

All of these have passed and have banned civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. that grant similar rights and legal recognition to marriage. The states that only banned marriage but allow civil unions have language like "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage that shall be recognised by X state", whereas North Carolina says "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal union that will be recognised". Make no mistake that it enshrines inequality for gay couples into North Carolina's constitution.

Since I live in North Carolina I see people on Facebook passing a picture along a lot.
It's basically the same as this one I just found.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m31y95ApAw1qb74jfo1_1280.jpg

If that's true, it's absolutely despicable, that people are letting bigotism cause this much damage.

Seekster:
First off, Percy I am adding you to my ignore list because you are getting angry on me and I don't want to risk responding to you in a way that might get me in trouble with the mods. Our conversation ended on the last page.

ten.to.ten:

Seekster:
Hmm...that would change my view on it...do you have a source that says this...a reliable (ie not from Huffington or some progressive blog).

Here's the text of the bill that approved the Amendment 1 ballot measure: http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v3.pdf

The full name of the bill is "AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE." (pardon the all caps, I was just pasting it as it was written)

SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:
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.

The bill goes on to say that it won't prohibit individuals from entering into "private contracts", but no relationships other than marriages between one man and one woman would be recognised by the state or given any state benefits.

I get where you are coming from but it seems pretty clear that the amendment is only talking about marriage and this is repeated several times in the text.

And Shaoken didnt say anything worth replying to so goody less typing for me.

"Only talking about marriage" is still talking about not giving GLBTQ people who want to spend their lives together any legal protection like that which marriage offers. It also impacts such varied things as insurances, loans and other things in which marriage is considered a benefit. You are basically saying that it is alright to give some people lower legal protection and a harder time using certain services because their chosen partner happens to be of the same sex. Just look at the image DarkishFriend posted for some examples.

This is not just about the ceremony of marriage, this is about the fact that NC seems to be ready to deny some people the same rights as others just because they aren't heteronormative.

ten.to.ten:
*snip*

Thanks for digging those up! It's pretty clear in their wording that they even forbid legally recognizing "marriage equivalents". Much more awful and much more indicative of the bigoted mindset at play here than just the "protect marriage"-crowd (which is bad enough already in my opinion). I wonder how much attention is paid to this fact in the media or whether these rather broader bans are even recognized as such.

ten.to.ten:
@Seekster: I took a look at the language of other constitutional amendments banning not just gay marriage but civil unions and other similar contracts, let's compare:

Amendment 1 in North Carolina:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

With...

Amendment 2 in Florida:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

State Proposal 04-2 in Michigan:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

Measure 1 in North Dakota:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Amendment 1 in Kansas:
(a) Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.

All of these have passed and have banned civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. that grant similar rights and legal recognition to marriage. The states that only banned marriage but allow civil unions have language like "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage that shall be recognised by X state", whereas North Carolina says "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal union that will be recognised". Make no mistake that it enshrines inequality for gay couples into North Carolina's constitution.

That is much worse than I had initially thought. Doesn't that also mean that a man and a woman living together for ten years but haven't quite bothered to do the whole marriage thing wouldn't be recognized by the state.

Naheal:
That is much worse than I had initially thought. Doesn't that also mean that a man and a woman living together for ten years but haven't quite bothered to do the whole marriage thing wouldn't be recognized by the state.

That's exactly right, but most states don't recognise unmarried couples at all in the first place, no matter how long they've been living together. This is in contrast to other culturally similar English speaking countries like the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where unmarried couples (straight or gay) are granted all or most of the same rights and responsibilities of married couples if they've been living together for a certain amount of time. North Carolina is one of those states that doesn't recognise unmarried cohabiting partners for benefits, so while Amendment 1 will prevent legislation allowing for the recognition of unmarried couples to take place, it won't remove any recognition for anyone that isn't already there, and straight couples will still at least have the option to marry.

Some speculate that Amendment 1 might interfere with domestic violence laws, by saying that the only type of relationship to be recognised by law is a marriage between a man and a woman, the constitution might end up forbidding the recognition of such a thing as domestic violence within unmarried households. However, I think that in Ohio, which has a similar constitutional amendment, the courts ruled that their amendment doesn't interfere in domestic violence laws, so the NC one probably won't either. The problem with the proposition is how vaguely it's written, so no one would know for sure whether it does or doesn't until a judge interprets it for the first time.

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.

Of course I'm going to thumb my nose at North Carolina. I don't like bullies, bigots, a socially regressive assholes who try to treat my friends like subhumans.

TheIronRuler:
*internet high give*
Nice one, sir. I agree. Though what do you think of polygamy?

Often done for the wrong reasons, but on reflection I have no moral objection with polyamory. If we stop sensationalizing it, maybe we can make some actual progress.

Seekster:
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.

Sucks being on the wrong side of history, doesn't it. I fail to see how this makes me a hypocrite though. We already have legal precedents that say "separate but equal" is actually an anagram for "fucking bullshit."

I don't care what you feel like calling it. I'm an atheist. If and when I get married, it will be an entirely secular ceremony. But you will still call it a marriage because that's what it fucking is.

Seekster:
it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

A profoundly creepy statement.

Seekster:
Its not greater status though at least it wouldnt be if they simply gave all the same rights and benefits to civil unions.

Then just call them marriages. Are you really so weak that you feel threatened by two loving, consenting adults that just happen to have the same number of X-chromosomes?

Seekster:
First of all its not banning same-sex marriage, its legally defining marriage. Legally there is an important difference.

Right, they're making it harder to remove the existing ban in case all that gay propaganda from the liberal media infects the electorate and convinces them that two dudes boning is not a threat to Western civilization.

I am advocating that the same laws that apply to heterosexuals also apply to homosexuals. That is equality before the law.

But you refuse to call it the same thing. Because, you know... gay sex is gross.

Seekster:
If you want the government to stop meddling in your affairs than get the government out of marriage completely,

Holy shit. You actually fucking said that.

who is the government to say what is and is not a marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract. It's the legislature's job to write laws. It's the job of the courts and civil servants to maintain those laws. If you remove government from marriage, there is no marriage. It becomes just another excuse for church people to dress up and read their favorite book, accomplishing absolutely nothing in the process.

However so long as you ask the government to be the ones issuing marriage licenses and providing benefits then the government has an interest in defining marriage in order to determine which benefits go to whom.

And thus it is the government's job to make sure you are protected from having to acknowledge gay people as being actual people.

Seekster:
I personally consider marriage to be a union between one man and one woman, and ideally one that lasts for life.

You're living in the wrong country, then.

A civil union is a purely legal construct while marriage is primarily a social institution but can also have legal and religious significance though does not necessarily need to have legal or religious significance.

Again, I am an atheist. But if I get married in a secular ceremony, they'll still give me a marriage license. Are you going to tell me that I should have a different license because it's not the kind of ceremony you would have gotten?

its none of my business what two adults do in the privacy of their own home

Then what makes it the government's business?

Its similar to a fraternity and a sorority. A group of college guys living in a frat house is all fine and dandy but its simply not a sorority, its a fraternity. It has a different name because it is different. Its not that one is better than the other, its just different.

You are aware that fraternity and sorority have Greek roots roughly meaning "brotherhood" and "sisterhood" respectively, right?

Marriage has long been the union of one man and one woman in this country.

Because everyone knows tradition is always perfect and infallible.

It wasnt a way to make life hard for homosexuals, its just what marriage has always been. If you want to change it thats fine, I don't but we can vote on these things. All I am saying is that its not discriminating against homosexuals to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. To say that is is would be a very twisted world view and would betray a serious victim complex.

You want to talk about victim complexes? Your side is the one claiming they're under attack by a "gay agenda."

I am given to understand that in France and other places, Civil Unions are seeing increased used even from heterosexual couples. In time I think yes to large parts of society a civil union would be able to achieve the same social recognition as marriage.

To the point where they start calling it a marriage. And then you lost the battle anyway.

PercyBoleyn:
In fact, marriage wasn't even about love, commitment or men and women. It was used as a means to solidify alliances and gain political standing. The ONLY reason the gay community didn't participate in that shit was because HOMOSEXUALS WERE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY VIRTUALLY EVERY FUCKING ONE.

Exactly what I said on page one. Seeks is using a definition of marriage that actually didn't exist until less than a century ago.

For most of history, marriage was a convenience. The "1 woman, 1 man" is a load of pigshit, because it was common, even expected for both people in the marriage to have lovers outside the household. Marriage was invented to resolve property, estate, and inheritance issues. There is nothing inherently sacred about the concept other than whatever meaning you assign to the union that you yourself are in. And if you're so spiritually weak that boys kissing and getting to call their contract a marriage threatens yours, then it's not worth protecting. You're not a persecuted minority. You're just a schmuck who can't deal with people who are different than you.

DarkishFriend:
If that's true, it's absolutely despicable, that people are letting bigotism cause this much damage.

"But the pastor in church told me to vote yes and uhm...."

DrVornoff:
You are aware that fraternity and sorority have Greek roots roughly meaning "brotherhood" and "sisterhood" respectively, right?

Smartass mode activated: They have Latin roots, frater and soror respectively.

Now, you could get the impression that I'm being incredibly petty and nitpicky from this, but consider that I'm not arguing against anything else you've said because I consider the rest of your post to be quite awesome. Wait, that doesn't really contradict me being nitpicky. Erm.

Skeleon:
Smartass mode activated: They have Latin roots, frater and soror respectively.

Now, you could get the impression that I'm being incredibly petty and nitpicky from this, but consider that I'm not arguing against anything else you've said because I consider the rest of your post to be quite awesome. Wait, that doesn't really contradict me being nitpicky. Erm.

Now you see why I never went into medicine: I suck so hard at Greek that I can't even tell when it's not Greek.

DrVornoff:
For most of history, marriage was a convenience. The "1 woman, 1 man" is a load of pigshit, because it was common, even expected for both people in the marriage to have lovers outside the household. Marriage was invented to resolve property, estate, and inheritance issues. There is nothing inherently sacred about the concept other than whatever meaning you assign to the union that you yourself are in. And if you're so spiritually weak that boys kissing and getting to call their contract a marriage threatens yours, then it's not worth protecting. You're not a persecuted minority. You're just a schmuck who can't deal with people who are different than you

What's annoying me about Seekster's position is that he's claiming the current definition was not implemented with the purpose of discriminating against the LGBT community. I mean Jesus Fucking Christ, the organizations that want to define marriage as being between one man and one woman are staunchly homophobic. Is he really that fucking blind?

Seekster:
I get where you are coming from but it seems pretty clear that the amendment is only talking about marriage and this is repeated several times in the text.

Actually that's false the amendment would ensure that civil unions or domestic partnerships are not recognized by the state. There are actually a few cities/counties in NC that locally recognize non-gender specific domestic partnerships and the amendment would invalidate those. However, the state of NC as a whole doesn't confer any special rights towards domestic partnerships anyways, but there are some benefits depending conferred by cities/counties.

I apologize for adding my own voice to the countless others who debate you Seekster, as is with most threads it seems a majority of the thread is a back and forth between you and the rest of the horde. I do have a question for you, though.

Supposing that the amendment would make civil unions or domestic partnerships unconstitutional in NC do you still support the amendment? To put it more succinctly; what is more important to you the protection of the term marriage or the protection of equal rights for LGBTQ community?

Keep in mind you can still hold the position of supporting legislative efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman without supporting this particular amendment. For further reference DOMA allows states to not recognize same-sex marriages or equivalents from other states and same-sex marriage is already unrecognized by legal statute in North Carolina.

As a follow up question:

Supposing a state defines marriage between one man and one woman, but affords the LGBTQ community equal rights in the eyes of the state via Civil Unions what is your stance on private interests that would afford marriages greater status than a civil union? For example private hospitals, insurance companies, banks, adoption agencies, or other businesses. In your opinion should either the state or federal government enact anti-discriminatory legislation to ensure equal rights are afforded to those with civil unions similar to the civil rights act?

ten.to.ten:
Some speculate that Amendment 1 might interfere with domestic violence laws, by saying that the only type of relationship to be recognised by law is a marriage between a man and a woman, the constitution might end up forbidding the recognition of such a thing as domestic violence within unmarried households. However, I think that in Ohio, which has a similar constitutional amendment, the courts ruled that their amendment doesn't interfere in domestic violence laws, so the NC one probably won't either. The problem with the proposition is how vaguely it's written, so no one would know for sure whether it does or doesn't until a judge interprets it for the first time.

Actually from what I can tell Amendment 1 wouldn't actually interfere with such things. It's been speculated, but when you read North Carolinian law the speculation is unfounded if not false. This comes from a conservative blog, but the clarification is pretty spot on except for the research done into domestic partnerships in NC which is a bit inaccurate. (Link)

The sources on the blog post are what really matters if your interested in reading further or doing the research yourself, but if any of the issues drummed up by the those in opposition towards amendment 1 went to a judge for any reason it's not too difficult to conclude how they would be settled. The law is pretty clear on the matter.

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.

Wait, how would they be hypocrites? I personally recognize a state's right to come to a decision on marriage, but that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with them (and hope it is changed in the future). Outlawing all forms of civil unions is just petty, though.

Bohemian Waltz:
Actually from what I can tell Amendment 1 wouldn't actually interfere with such things. It's been speculated, but when you read North Carolinian law the speculation is unfounded if not false. This comes from a conservative blog, but the clarification is pretty spot on except for the research done into domestic partnerships in NC which is a bit inaccurate. (Link)

The sources on the blog post are what really matters if your interested in reading further or doing the research yourself, but if any of the issues drummed up by the those in opposition towards amendment 1 went to a judge for any reason it's not too difficult to conclude how they would be settled. The law is pretty clear on the matter.

Thanks for that, it seems pretty clear then that Amendment 1 wouldn't interfere with the domestic violence laws already on the books, though like I said, I thought it would be unlikely to invalidate domestic violence laws anyway.

And I'd highly recommend that @Seekster take a look at that link, too. Not only would it forbid the creation of civil unions with equivalent rights to marriage for gay couples, but it would also invalidate domestic partnerships that people have already entered into in certain city councils. This is a bad amendment, even if you don't support gay marriage.

JoJo:
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

Wait, the UK doesn't have gay marriage already? I guess I'm not to up on the status of it outside of the US and Canada. We've had it for years now in Canada (strangely enough, the military was ahead of the game on it, even being required to find someone willing to marry a homosexual soldier if they requested it before it was fully legalized throughout the country).

And can I say that it'd be awfully nice if people in North Carolina and other states who are against gay marriage could remove their heads from their asses long enough to notice that it isn't 1960 anymore?

ten.to.ten:

Seekster:
I get where you are coming from but it seems pretty clear that the amendment is only talking about marriage and this is repeated several times in the text.

It is unambiguously intended to forbid any and all relationship recognition for gay couples in North Carolina, including but not limited to civil unions. It is as clear as day, by saying that no relationship other than a marriage between one man and one woman will be legally recognised by the state, recognising anything else, like civil unions or domestic partnerships, will be unconstitutional. That it was it was designed to do, it is widely understood, it can't be more clear.

I am going to have to disagree with you but only just. If you are right though I would be opposed to this Amendment.

On a side note Ten, I commend you for being one of the only people on this forum capable of holding a reasonable and respectable discussion on this issue. Just for you I will look into this matter more on my own and if you are right that this would ban all kinds of same-sex unions then I would oppose this amendment.

Vivi22:
Wait, the UK doesn't have gay marriage already? I guess I'm not to up on the status of it outside of the US and Canada. We've had it for years now in Canada (strangely enough, the military was ahead of the game on it, even being required to find someone willing to marry a homosexual soldier if they requested it before it was fully legalized throughout the country).

Hope JoJo doesn't mind me butting in, the UK has "civil partnerships" for gay couples, which are identical to marriage in everything but name in almost all respects. The thing is, because civil partnerships are so similar to marriage, people who enter into civil partnerships are often referred to as getting married, civil partners are often referred to as husbands/wives, etc., so it's understandable why you might think the UK has marriage equality, a lot of other people do too.

Seekster:
On a side note Ten, I commend you for being one of the only people on this forum capable of holding a reasonable and respectable discussion on this issue. Just for you I will look into this matter more on my own and if you are right that this would ban all kinds of same-sex unions then I would oppose this amendment.

Thank you, I do appreciate it.

Seekster:

ten.to.ten:

Seekster:
I get where you are coming from but it seems pretty clear that the amendment is only talking about marriage and this is repeated several times in the text.

It is unambiguously intended to forbid any and all relationship recognition for gay couples in North Carolina, including but not limited to civil unions. It is as clear as day, by saying that no relationship other than a marriage between one man and one woman will be legally recognised by the state, recognising anything else, like civil unions or domestic partnerships, will be unconstitutional. That it was it was designed to do, it is widely understood, it can't be more clear.

I am going to have to disagree with you but only just. If you are right though I would be opposed to this Amendment.

On a side note Ten, I commend you for being one of the only people on this forum capable of holding a reasonable and respectable discussion on this issue. Just for you I will look into this matter more on my own and if you are right that this would ban all kinds of same-sex unions then I would oppose this amendment.

Just to speed things along for you:
-PDF of the law from NC legislature website - Take note of both times this wording is used: "only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by the state"
-Article with comment from Renee Ellmers (R) US representative NC 2nd district. I think you would like her Seek she pretty much mirrors your views on same-sex marriage exactly. According to her the amendment would ban civil unions which is why her spokesperson commented that she was personally against it even though she advocates for marriage defined as '1 man 1 woman'.
-Article that touches on Rep Renee Ellmers opinion as well as a comment from Log Cabin Republicans
-ACLU's take on civil NC-Amendment 1 Regardless of how you feel about them they are pretty decent at interpreting and understanding law.
-Article indyweekly that discusses Amendment 1 "Amendment 1 would change the state constitution, adding language to prohibit enactment of any law recognizing same-gender marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships."
-Public Policy polling on Amendment 1 support "A 40% plurality now knows that the amendment would ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions, versus 36% in the previous survey. Those who know what the amendment would do are against it by 22 points, but they are outweighed by the strong support from the uneducated."

If you want more simply let me know. I think it's pretty clear, though. I thought 5 sources plus the actual bill itself (it's only 1 page) was enough. Add to that Ten.to.Tens excellent comparison to other states constitutional bans as well as any research you would like to preform via a google search and I believe the matter is rather clear.

Looking at the research/sources it seems that Republicans in North Carolina arent racist.... They are just homophobic and uneducated.

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's only hypocritical if they claimed to support state's rights, and that's generally YOUR wheelhouse seeks, the rest of us are quite comfortable with the idea of the federal government putting and end to all this backwards redneckery and giving gay Americans the rights they deserve.

Magichead:

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's only hypocritical if they claimed to support state's rights, and that's generally YOUR wheelhouse seeks, the rest of us are quite comfortable with the idea of the federal government putting and end to all this backwards redneckery and giving gay Americans the rights they deserve.

I know I am. Better to have one law passed and get this shit done than drag it out with 50 arguments. It's already getting tired and repetitive. Though I am looking forward to seeing which state will be the last to legalise same-sex marriage. My money's on Alabama, but Jordan thinks it'll be Mississippi.

captcha: "get over it". Which is exactly what the anti-gay crowd needs to do. I love when the captcha agrees me...

For the love of God and all his angels will you people calm down?

What does it really matter. Really? You people really think that Jesus, the man of peace, would want you to oppress others rights in his name? He would hate that. And if you really think that homosexuality is an abomination, then stop eating Shrimp.

Look, I am just tried of this all this fighting. Just shut up and get along...or make me your Emperor and I will MAKE you people get along. :D

Gentleman Adventurer:
For the love of God and all his angels will you people calm down?

What does it really matter. Really? You people really think that Jesus, the man of peace, would want you to oppress others rights in his name? He would hate that. And if you really think that homosexuality is an abomination, then stop eating Shrimp.

Look, I am just tried of this all this fighting. Just shut up and get along...or make me your Emperor and I will MAKE you people get along. :D

"Not only is he an adventurer, but a gentleman too!"

Gentleman Adventurer 2012

hardlymotivated:
"Not only is he an adventurer, but a gentleman too!"

Gentleman Adventurer 2012

You're not fooling anybody.
If he were to run for office, you'd still be hardly motivated enough to vote for him.
Voter apathy is a big problem, you know!

Skeleon:

hardlymotivated:
"Not only is he an adventurer, but a gentleman too!"

Gentleman Adventurer 2012

You're not fooling anybody.
If he were to run for office, you'd still be hardly motivated enough to vote for him.
Voter apathy is a big problem, you know!

I would reply to your post, but I'm too apathetic...

Captcha: "nap time"

I agree, captcha!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked