North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1

[æonpax]

The North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment will appear on the May 8, 2012 ballot in the state of North Carolina as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.

The measure would define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. ( Source - http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012) )



For those of you who have outgrown the "phobia" debate, there are real issues out here which when tied together, affect all people in the LGBT. Same sex marriage is one of them.

The Republicans, in alliance with the teaparty and the ultra religious right, are waging a war against homosexuals. One by one, they want to overturn and progress that has been made over the years and blunt any future gains by offering amendments such as this. These are not people whom believe in compromise or moderation, it is truly a war they wage based on hatred or at the very least, intolerance.



Bisexual people in committed same-sex relationships deserve the same recognition, respect, and protections as all other families. The struggle to establish civil rights protections for bisexual people cannot be separated from the effort to win the freedom to marry for all LGBT people. Many in the bisexual community, including BiNet USA (http://www.binetusa.org/Pages/aboutus.html)—the oldest national bisexual organization in the United States—have been active in the efforts to secure the freedom to marry since the movement’s inception, and continue to show strong support.

“As someone who has over the course of my adult life been deeply in love — at different times — with both men and women, I can attest to the fact that love is love. It is silly to pretend otherwise. All relationships need the same support. All relationships deserve the same respect.” - http://www.freedomtomarry.org/communities/entry/c/bisexuals —Robyn Ochs, Boston MA (bi activist, marriage equality activist, editor of Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965388158/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=096538814X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1S3XAXWFQSR3C5BQZRYZ)).

[falcondfw]

"These are not people whom believe in compromise or moderation, it is truly a war they wage based on hatred or at the very least, intolerance."

That is not the way I understood things. I grew up in this culture. They are basing it on what they feel is a strict interpretation of the bible.
The interesting thing is several priests and pastors I have talked with have all stated this or similar unequivocally -
"When Jesus came and died for our sins, he was establishing a new covenant between humans and God. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and that new covenant. Based on the new covenant, God promised to never do anything like Soddam and Gamorrah or like the Great Flood again.".
The anti-homosexual crowd bases a lot of what they believe on what happened at Soddam and Gamorrah. But that is part of the Old Testament and not part of the new Covenant. So which is it? They can't pick and choose parts from each. Either they follow the new Covenant and Christianity and do not follow the teachings of the Old Testament or they follow the Old Testament (like Jewish people) and cannot claim to be members of Christianity.

(And yes, I am sure I spelled Soddam and Gamorrah wrongly.)

[Brian]

Did anyone else see the Lawrence O'Donnell show on this topic last night? He showed a sermon from an NC Pastor who makes a terrific case for marriage equality from a human/civil rights standpoint. Here is the video of the segment and the Pastor's speech: http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11587966-rewriting-nc-on-marriage-equality

- Drew

[DuckiesDarling]

Thanks for posting that Drew, I truly wish that everyone would understand it doesn't matter the gender of a married couple, what matters is the genuine love between them and a wish to proclaim loud and clear to all that they are one. Everyone deserves the right to be happy and everyone deserves the right to be sad. I am for "gay" marriage but I'm also for "gay" divorce. I want them to have the same rights as hetero's do and not be told well you aren't married here so you can't get divorced :(

[Long Duck Dong]

thanks drew for the video

incredible message.......... are people really voting against same sex marriage or for religion to make laws for the people.....???

that preacher's message should be broadcast on every tv before the ballot votes are cast.....

[Bayoubear9]

I don't see this as that big of a deal and here is why: As best I recall anytime in history that human rights cases made it to the supreme court the verdict is *always (speaking in absolutes, may be exceptions?) in favor of the rights of the oppressed. This may just be the case we need for the supreme court to eventually kick this ridiculous law to the curb once and for all. Frustrating indeed it is that the wheels of justice turn ever so slowly however in the long run I really believe in my lifetime we will all see marriage equality.

[æonpax]

I don't see this as that big of a deal and here is why: As best I recall anytime in history that human rights cases made it to the supreme court the verdict is *always (speaking in absolutes, may be exceptions?) in favor of the rights of the oppressed. This may just be the case we need for the supreme court to eventually kick this ridiculous law to the curb once and for all. Frustrating indeed it is that the wheels of justice turn ever so slowly however in the long run I really believe in my lifetime we will all see marriage equality.


Perhaps, perhaps not. This Supreme Court is arguably the most socially conservative in recent history, with the exception of Court during the 1932–1937 terms. ( http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/ ) Scalia and Thomas are so ultra conservative that many legal scholars doubt their ability to be impartial. The “Citizens United” decision, which gave personhood to corporations, is an example of how far right SCOTUS has gone. There is every reason to believe this court would not rule favorably upon same sex marriage.

The US Constitution is silent on marriage which is why you see the states either amending their laws to either allow it, or in the case of North Carolina here, to deny it. (States Rights). The last time the Supreme Court got involved in a major marriage case was Loving Vs Virginia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia ) in which the Virginia law prohibited interracial marriage, which violated the federal Civil Rights laws, was overturned.

Contained in that decision was this text,



Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There are ways to change the US Constitution to specifically allow gay marriage but each has their own problems;


1) A Constitutional Convention – With the exception of the extremists on both ends, nobody in their right mind wants to do this.

2) The Congressional Amendment process

3) The “Informal Amendment” meaning it changes by a judiciary ruling, the Supreme Court.


If two thirds of the states pass their laws to allow gay marriage, that would set the stage for the Congressional process to amend the US Constitution to allow it. However, it still would take ¾ of the states to ratify this.

[slipnslide]

And the measure passed.

[_Joe_]

I'm sorry, but ... wtf is all I could say when I read this

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/02/wife-of-nc-gop-senator-says-banning-same-sex-marriage-about-protecting-white-race/

[void()]

I have difficulty believing a state would pass laws to make same sex marriage illegal. My reason for this opinion is due partly due to federal law having to keep church and state separate, partly to states needing federal funding. The federals would not risk the embarrassment of allowing states to prohibit same sex marriages upon a religion based vote, and then funding them.

That would equate to removing the Constitution itself from its secure display, and burning it publicly. It would mean a return to religious prosecution, theocracy, a return to the Dark Ages. Be shameful to see a revolt of the populous to avoid such a drastic backsliding.

States use federal funding in many ways. It is a beneficial supplement. Be a shame to see funding dry up to states in favor of prohibiting same sex marriage. Seems a friend was correct long ago, food, money, sex are all that matter. They had a few other things which mattered then, but we concluded these three seem to illicit total control over people.

Funny how folks call someone crazy for telling them the C.I.A strategy guide, and say it's being used on us. Control the money, you leave most without food or sex. Control money and people don't travel, people don't engage in thought, no need. Control money, you can control belief. "Work harder, produce more, earn more." So it becomes an indoctrinating mantra, "produce or starve". Easy enough to see how human beings become capital like so much chattel and livestock.

But no, "just overlook void, he's a bit touched." I see these sort of things, like Cassandra. Thread here, bobbin there, pin over yonder, loom and shuttle in the corner, someone weaves it into a tapestry with patterns. I am not the weaver, just someone watching, someone saying "hey guys, they're making a stormy pattern over here." Smalltalk? Sorry, bigger images tend to make that difficult at best for me. I see the threads which make each of us, myself included. I see how we get hung out to dry after dying. And that lets me 'read' a great deal more about people, words, thoughts, ideas. No, can't 'turn it off'. I think, sorry.

Tired of apologizing for thinking, too.

[Dapper_Fellow]

Perhaps since the loose language of Amendment 1 may very likely disenfranchise heterosexual couples, there will actually be an outcry. Maybe some day people will realize that civil rights are not a zero-sum matter. This Amendment is a lose-lose proposition for same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples in NC. The only thing gained from the passage of this Amendment is a ham handed attempt by the far right to argue that "A majority of voters oppose same sex marriage".

[Brian]

I'm sorry, but ... wtf is all I could say when I read this

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/02/wife-of-nc-gop-senator-says-banning-same-sex-marriage-about-protecting-white-race/

Yeah, that is some nasty stuff there. Well the bright side is it helps clearly establish the connection between all human rights - those who would oppress one minority tend to want to oppress other minorities.

- Drew :paw:

[Bayoubear9]

Aeon, you bring up some great points. I think the first line of the decision you quoted says it all. Marriage is as declared by the court one of the fundamental rights of man. It may take a decade tied up in litigation but I really do think the day will come when the anti-gay laws will be struck from the books. A happy thought in the meantime is that this process will thoroughly bankrupt the state of NC due to legal costs. Not going to happen but wishful thinkin'. :)

[_Joe_]

I don't know how reliable Mother Jones is, but this write up I found pretty interesting, and I'm wondering if voters really put some thought into what they were voting for.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/amendment-1-north-carolina-gay-people

Nothing like vague laws to become loopholes down the road.

[jamieknyc]

I am not sure the Supreme Court can act on this.

[_Joe_]

I don't know how reliable Mother Jones is, but this write up I found pretty interesting, and I'm wondering if voters really put some thought into what they were voting for.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/amendment-1-north-carolina-gay-people

Nothing like vague laws to become loopholes down the road.

Ok my train of thought finally boarded a station.

The congressman's wife comments that this bill helps preserve the caucasion race, and I'm trying to look past the racism in her comment to see why she would say such a thing that any normal person would think "wow, this is going to be taken pretty racist, I shouldn't say it"

So then reading how this vague law can become an issue for domestic violence protection, unmarried parents benefits, unmarried couples benefits, estate issues, and employers health benefits, etc etc, I'm starting to see something here - the government can save money by denying benefits (well, the employeer is the exception there).

I don't know where to find the census data on how many non-married union/couple there is, but I'm wondering how much money the government just saved, and took away even more assistance from those in need which may be a bit heavy on the minority side (kicking them when they are already down), THUS protecting the white race.

[12voltman59]

This was an interesting segment on last night's Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC where she spoke with Newark NJ mayor, Cory Booker on President Obama's finally saying he favors same sex marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0_M573d_k
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0_M573d_k)

[12voltman59]

I think that Booker raises some profoundly important issues in both his discussion with Maddow and in the recorded statements he made in response to Gov Christie's veto of NJ's same sex marriage law.

I like how he frames this issue in 14th Amendment terms, that to deny any such rights to people is simply wrong and this does go to things I have said in the past on other issues on here----that if such rights had not been denied to those of racial and ethnic minorities, to women and to gays---then there would never have been need for those groups to clamor for "special rights" as those who would or did deny ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES to these and other groups----these groups were not seeking SPECIAL RIGHTS---they were simply seeking their full rights due them as citizens of the United States of America and that the government also do its duty to protect and serve them when they became victims of crimes committed against them by those "of the majority."

[falcondfw]

" My reason for this opinion is due partly due to federal law having to keep church and state separate"

Void,
There is NO federal LAW requiring Church and state to be separate. Not even in the Constitution.
All it says is :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That means they cannot pass a law to "OFFICIALLY" establish a "Religion of the United States", like Germany did with the Lutheran religion or England did with the "Church of England".

It also means they cannot pass laws preventing people from creating whatever religion they wish.

It DOES NOT say that the Government and a Religion, ANY religion cannot be intertwined.

[falcondfw]

"Tired of apologizing for thinking, too."

NEVER. EVER! Apologize for thinking, doing your own research, and coming to your own conclusions. It means you are not a parrot. It makes dealing with you more fun and interesting.

For example, for the most part, Fran and I are at TOTALLY polar opposites of the philosophical spectrum. But she makes me think and she has the guts to challenge me, hopefully based on her doing her own research and thinking. That i can respect. The way i can respect you for not just spitting out the party line of whatever party you follow. You think. You research. You speak intelligently. Sometimes people agree. Sometimes they don't. NEVER apologize for being you.

[falcondfw]

HOLY S!!!!

Joe,
Only thing i got to say is BUSTED!!!!! BITCH IS DONE BUSTED!!!!!!!!
Wow. Whether on the right or left, it is so much fun to watch a politician or those associated with them to try to wiggle out of things.
Heat Stroke???? REALLY? SERIOUSLY???? You can't do better than that????

I hope and pray her hub does not, has not, and will not ever listen to her. IF he does, he needs to be gone from office.

[pepperjack]

Q: What do politicians & dirty laundry have in common? A: They both tend to come clean when they're in hot water. ( Actually they spin & bs even more). Old joke.:shades:

[void()]

" My reason for this opinion is due partly due to federal law having to keep church and state separate"

Void,
There is NO federal LAW requiring Church and state to be separate. Not even in the Constitution.
All it says is :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That means they cannot pass a law to "OFFICIALLY" establish a "Religion of the United States", like Germany did with the Lutheran religion or England did with the "Church of England".

It also means they cannot pass laws preventing people from creating whatever religion they wish.

It DOES NOT say that the Government and a Religion, ANY religion cannot be intertwined.



Thought keeping them apart had always been inferred from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Because if the government entwines itself with any religion it is then an endorsement of that religion specifically, as in to say, "this is America's religion." As it stands everyone is able is to choose their way, or lack of way.

[æonpax]

I think that Booker raises some profoundly important issues in both his discussion with Maddow and in the recorded statements he made in response to Gov Christie's veto of NJ's same sex marriage law.

I like how he frames this issue in 14th Amendment terms, that to deny any such rights to people is simply wrong and this does go to things I have said in the past on other issues on here----that if such rights had not been denied to those of racial and ethnic minorities, to women and to gays---then there would never have been need for those groups to clamor for "special rights" as those who would or did deny ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES to these and other groups----these groups were not seeking SPECIAL RIGHTS---they were simply seeking their full rights due them as citizens of the United States of America and that the government also do its duty to protect and serve them when they became victims of crimes committed against them by those "of the majority."

One of the main objections the political right and their ancillary extremist religious use is this concept they refer to as "Special Rights", to wit;


Special rights is a term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups. Ideas of special rights are controversial, as they clash with the principle of equality before the law.

Potential examples of special rights include affirmative action policies or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, or the state recognition of marriage as a group with different taxation than those who are non-married.

Concepts of special rights are closely aligned with notions of group rights and identity politics. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_rights




They content that same sex marriage is a "special right". My view is that's nothing but, to put it colloquially, bull shit. Constitutionally, there is no such thing as a "special right". There are only rights, most inherent and fundamental, that we as a society, have not allowed. This is why we have amendments to the Constitution. When women were legally allowed to vote via the Nineteenth Amendment, certain men screamed it was a "special right" and how allowing it would doom society as we know it. Yeah...right.

That same objection, Special rights", came up after the 14th and 15th Amendments and subsequent laws such as the "Civil Rights Act". The right does not tire using that phrase even though it is meaningless.

[darkeyes]

When women were legally allowed to vote via the Nineteenth Amendment, certain men screamed it was a "special right" and how allowing it would doom society as we know it. Yeah...right.
But it did doom society as they knew it, Joan... with the advent of universal suffrage so began the march in earnest and the struggle which remains on-going to gender equality. From that moment women received the vote the society they knew and believed in began to change and they would be horrified that the society they knew has disappeared and that men no longer have the absolute right of control over the rights and lives of half of society.. there may still be much to be done, but the society these certain men knew is long dead...

[Brian]

One of the main objections the political right and their ancillary extremist religious use is this concept they refer to as "Special Rights", to wit;


Special rights is a term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups. Ideas of special rights are controversial, as they clash with the principle of equality before the law.

Potential examples of special rights include affirmative action policies or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, or the state recognition of marriage as a group with different taxation than those who are non-married.

Concepts of special rights are closely aligned with notions of group rights and identity politics. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_rights




They content that same sex marriage is a "special right". My view is that's nothing but, to put it colloquially, bull shit. Constitutionally, there is no such thing as a "special right". There are only rights, most inherent and fundamental, that we as a society, have not allowed. This is why we have amendments to the Constitution. When women were legally allowed to vote via the Nineteenth Amendment, certain men screamed it was a "special right" and how allowing it would doom society as we know it. Yeah...right.

That same objection, Special rights", came up after the 14th and 15th Amendments and subsequent laws such as the "Civil Rights Act". The right does not tire using that phrase even though it is meaningless. Yeah, I'm with you Aeonpax. I don't think I have heard the term "Special Rights" before but I bristle at it - it is a misleading term. I would call those examples in the Wikipedia article, "special protections to create equal rights", as opposed to "special rights".

My understanding is that here in Canada we have a similar concept, it is best described as "Treating people equally does not mean treating people the same." So for example, aboriginals have access to some things that others do not such as free post-secondary (college/university) education including living expenses. This is to compensate for a playing field that was tilted against aboriginals for many, many generations to such a degree that the burden on even today's aboriginals is undeniable. Maybe one day the program will be halted, but for now it is generally agreed that this "unequal" treatment will and does promote and create equality in the long run.

- Drew :paw:

[void()]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html


I think if a person took the proceeding at face value then, if Joe
wants to marry Steve and Linda wants marry Cindy, go for it. We the
people retrain the rights. Our money pays for the politicos.

What is the worse anyone can do, jail people getting married? Going to
jail everyone? While at it, go on and charge me for sedition and
inciting a riot of love.

Figure if you overload the jails, America becomes crippled. Shoot, I'm
your neighborhood terrorist for suggesting people exercise their
American rights. American Summer is on! Bring on the Love In!

Also worth mention is to not forget the class war going on. We need
to hold the line. Filling prisons with lovers might be a good start, though.
Then, we'll get detention camps right proper brought out by the captilists.

It really is sad they have so much to lose. That forces their hand in needing
to defend everything. The less you have the more free you are, truly. Let's
us show them.