My State May Have just Passed A Very Restrictive Addition

[winstonsmith84]

Nail on the head. Seriously.

Not really, but sorta. I alluded to this earlier, though no one ever seems to understand what im driving at, so here goes.

Marriage, like baptism or communion is a sacrament of the church. The state can not sanction marriage in any way shape or form. The state exists to handle the paperwork and aspects of the legal union that results from marriage. If people wish to enjoy those legal rights, then the state, under the equal protection of the constitution, must grant those rights to people who wish them outside of the sacrament of marriage.

Basically, from a legal stand point, the state has no business being involved in marriage. If the church refuses to perform gay marriage, so what. Since the state can't baptize me, why should they be able to marry me. All unions, gay or straight should be civil from the states standpoint. There should be some basic limitations ( 2 willing of age people, no sheep... that sort of stuff) but after that the state has no interest. The church can dictate the particulars of marriage all it wants, as it is a sacrament.

DL;DR? Ban all marriage.

[Mk1Racer]

Which, going on what you compared it to, sounds like you think being gay and black are a choice just like religion...
People can change their religious beliefs, but I do not think a gay black man has much chance of waking up one day being a straight Asian man.

I agree, people can change their religious beliefs. Do you think they should because their beliefs change, or because other members of the group cast the group in a negative light? My whole point was that Robstr is employing the same ignorant and uniformed stereotypes that he attributes to the A1 supporters. Not going to get into the debate about sexuality being a choice.

[rsj0714]

Lets keep the religion bashing to a minimum please!!

Just because Democrats may hold a majority in the state says nothing about why this bill passed. If you think all democrats support all causes by their party your just as stupid as the people who think all conservatives are bigoted hate mongers who hate the poor.

What you are seeing, Obama's election being an exclusion, is how North Carolina actually votes. You could say Obama will get destroyed in this swing state.

[zaYG]

Which, going on what you compared it to, sounds like you think being gay and black are a choice just like religion...
People can change their religious beliefs, but I do not think a gay black man has much chance of waking up one day being a straight Asian man.

Being black isn't a choice?

[Air-over-water]

Being black isn't a choice?

He still is/was black on the census, so no it is not a choice.

[deucestudios]

DL;DR? Ban all marriage.

Close enough for hand grenades.

I've said before in other threads about this that all marriage should not be state recognized (not illegal, just not recognized), and that joint partnership and/or union should be the only thing the state recognizes.

That's way to simple and sensible to come from a government though.

[joness0154]

Not really, but sorta. I alluded to this earlier, though no one ever seems to understand what im driving at, so here goes.

Marriage, like baptism or communion is a sacrament of the church. The state can not sanction marriage in any way shape or form. The state exists to handle the paperwork and aspects of the legal union that results from marriage. If people wish to enjoy those legal rights, then the state, under the equal protection of the constitution, must grant those rights to people who wish them outside of the sacrament of marriage.

Basically, from a legal stand point, the state has no business being involved in marriage. If the church refuses to perform gay marriage, so what. Since the state can't baptize me, why should they be able to marry me. All unions, gay or straight should be civil from the states standpoint. There should be some basic limitations ( 2 willing of age people, no sheep... that sort of stuff) but after that the state has no interest. The church can dictate the particulars of marriage all it wants, as it is a sacrament.

DL;DR? Ban all marriage.

Marriage predates any of the organized religions we know today. It was originally a contract between two people but as religion roared along they threw the Church/whatever in there too.

There's no way that, with all the current marriage contracts out there, that states can no longer be involved in marriage. Its too late - they already are.

It's a question of civil rights now.

[ModestGirl]

I'm surprised that no one has posted this yet - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states

NC is not the first to ban gay marriage, but I think the thing that makes this extra reprehensible is that in gets rid of civil unions as well. I have seen in several exit polls that people who voted for the marriage ban were not clear on this point, and do not think civil unions should be banned. We shall see what happens. Prop 8 was overturned as unconstitutional, and it seems that is a possibility, however slim in this case too. So much for separation of church and state.

Several other have already made this point but I think it bears repeating - why should you care about something that has no effect on your day to day life? Cliche, but still relevant, this -

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Niemoller

I am not comparing voters in NC to Nazis, that is ridiculous. But the sentiment of being passive because it does not effect your life is the same, and is happening (and has happened) all over the country. Dick Luger just lost a primary because he believes in working with people who have different ideological beliefs. Ass hats like Rick Santorum actually have audiences to their bigoted, ignorant ideals. My vagina is apparently short on government officials and I should stop trying to make decisions. This is how rights that have been gained are chipped away. Little by little, relying on the ignorance and apathy of the voters. So yes, there was already a ban on marriage in NC, and there are bans or restrictions in 30 other states. So why care? Because marriage is a human right, and if you sit back and let it be trampled on, the next right that gets the ax might have everything to do with you.

[cockerpunk]

a thread where chris stack is showing complete lack of empathy?

oh the humanity!

[Surf Green]

Or is it possible that you have Democrats that are 'religious bigots'?

You'd keep that quiet if you're trying to paint this entirely as an issue of ignorant white people.

[2VWatatime]

What you are seeing, Obama's election being an exclusion, is how North Carolina actually votes. You could say Obama will get destroyed in this swing state.

??? NC has a fairly large black voting population (IIRC approx 25%). I can't imagine a scenario that gives President Obama less than 95% of that vote, which is interesting as that's an estimate (I'll try to find the source again) of black (largely churchgoing) support for A1. Go figure.

[Fritz27]

Not really, but sorta. I alluded to this earlier, though no one ever seems to understand what im driving at, so here goes.

Marriage, like baptism or communion is a sacrament of the church. The state can not sanction marriage in any way shape or form. The state exists to handle the paperwork and aspects of the legal union that results from marriage. If people wish to enjoy those legal rights, then the state, under the equal protection of the constitution, must grant those rights to people who wish them outside of the sacrament of marriage.

Basically, from a legal stand point, the state has no business being involved in marriage. If the church refuses to perform gay marriage, so what. Since the state can't baptize me, why should they be able to marry me. All unions, gay or straight should be civil from the states standpoint. There should be some basic limitations ( 2 willing of age people, no sheep... that sort of stuff) but after that the state has no interest. The church can dictate the particulars of marriage all it wants, as it is a sacrament.

DL;DR? Ban all marriage.

Marriage predates Christianity though. Marriage up until the 1960s was essentially just a property arrangement. I think the use of the term marriage by the government is a bad idea because of dumb dumbs passing Amendment 1 and the like, but at the same time, I can understand why its used. It'd be a lot easier for the government to just call all marriages civil unions since for the government's purpose that's all they are anyway. Oh wells, in 40 years no ****s will be given about this stupid-ass issue.

[ModestGirl]

Votes like this are not along party lines. Yes, statistically, more dems vote for gay rights and more reps vote against, but this vote is religious. And as people have already said, there are Very Religious People in every party. The only justifications that I have heard for this is to "keep marriage how god made it" which is BS to me.

[ModestGirl]

Marriage predates Christianity though. Marriage up until the 1960s was essentially just a property arrangement. I think the use of the term marriage by the government is a bad idea because of dumb dumbs passing Amendment 1 and the like, but at the same time, I can understand why its used. It'd be a lot easier for the government to just call all marriages civil unions since for the government's purpose that's all they are anyway. Oh wells, in 40 years no ****s will be given about this stupid-ass issue.

I hope this is true. 40 years ago I bet there were people who said the same thing about interracial marriage, but I can tell you from personal experience people (to whom it's none of their business) still care.

There are always going to be bigots and racists and people filled to the brim with hate. Passing civil rights laws are a way to tell those people to keep their hate to themselves.

[zaYG]

Votes like this are not along party lines. Yes, statistically, more dems vote for gay rights and more reps vote against, but this vote is religious. And as people have already said, there are Very Religious People in every party. The only justifications that I have heard for this is to "keep marriage how god made it" which is BS to me.

Not really just religious, but mostly just bigoted. If you listen to or watch enough anti-gay media you will start to believe it no matter what your affiliation is.

My dad for example. Not religious. Not completely against gays, but I wouldn't doubt he would have voted in favor of this amendment. Well, it depends on whether he decided to read a libertarian news site or Fox News for the day since his viewpoint swings in different directions depending on the day of the week.

[Fritz27]

I hope this is true. 40 years ago I bet there were people who said the same thing about interracial marriage, but I can tell you from personal experience people (to whom it's none of their business) still care.

There are always going to be bigots and racists and people filled to the brim with hate. Passing civil rights laws are a way to tell those people to keep their hate to themselves.

As the product of an interracial relationship and being in one myself, I know what you mean. Regardless, I think the irony of this whole thing is that the Baby Boomers are the ones likely voting for this legislation. Those dickwad useless POSs that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth and ass and were all about free-love and all that crunchy granola BS 40 years ago are now the same bunch of hateful old bigots of the generation before them.

Not really just religious, but mostly just bigoted. If you listen to or watch enough anti-gay media you will start to believe it no matter what your affiliation is.

My dad for example. Not religious. Not completely against gays, but I wouldn't doubt he would have voted in favor of this amendment. Well, it depends on whether he decided to read a libertarian news site or Fox News for the day since his viewpoint swings in different directions depending on the day of the week.

Agreed. My fiancee's dad is kind of a cranky old liberal and I still think he's pretty anti-gay and he's not the least bit religious. It's mostly a generational thing.

[2VWatatime]

Marriage predates Christianity though. Marriage up until the 1960s was essentially just a property arrangement. I think the use of the term marriage by the government is a bad idea because of dumb dumbs passing Amendment 1 and the like, but at the same time, I can understand why its used. It'd be a lot easier for the government to just call all marriages civil unions since for the government's purpose that's all they are anyway. Oh wells, in 40 years no ****s will be given about this stupid-ass issue.

This. Note that A1 does not "ban" any type of marriage - it forces the state to only assign benefits to a given definition of marriage.

The solution is both obvious and simple: the state does not have the right to assign benefits to a set of citizens based on the nature of said citizen's relationships.

[Aonarch]

So I'm not against gay marriage at all, but I never really get why straight people get their panties SO twisted over the issue.

This.

Who the hell cares. Let gay people get married.

The real reason is all the religious fanatics... OMG gay marriage is unholy! Well that should be left up to their churches if they want to perform the ceremonies or not. Getting married at a court house is not a religious affair.

[winstonsmith84]

. So why care? Because marriage is a human right, and if you sit back and let it be trampled on, the next right that gets the ax might have everything to do with you.

As long as we continue to use the term marriage in a legal context, no one is going to come out ahead. Marriage is not a human right any more than Communion. The legal aspect of marriage is a civil matter that can be handled by the state, but nothing more. The state, ideally, should not have the means to discriminate when it comes to paper work.

[zukiphile]

In no particular order of importance:

I am not comparing voters in NC to Nazis, that is ridiculous. But the sentiment of being passive because it does not effect your life is the same, and is happening (and has happened) all over the country.

Yet, voters are not being passive. They are voting for the kinds of marriage laws they support.

I would like to hear any logical reasoning behind supporting this bill not covered by some magical tarp of religion.

It's been done many times.

This is now how I picture 61% of North Carolinians.

That's a powerful argument against stereotyping people.

Coming to a supreme court near you: Lawrence v. Texas overturned in a 5-4.
I'm not joking. Lawrence was a 6-3 decision, but O'connor joined. She has been replace with Alito who would likely vote to overturn.

I am not certain of that. Though the majority reasoning was poor, the Texas law was odd and distinguishable from the law upheld in Hardwick.

Banning gay marriage, defining what adult relationships are 'legal' and what aren't, ...

We agree that not making provision for SSM doesn't ban any relationships, right?

This should not be a state issue. Period. Something needs to be done on a federal level to stop this marginalization of gays. It's damned disgraceful.

Marriage law generally is a state issue. Federalising every policy decision you dislike may not work out to the benefit of homosexuals.

[FBMphil]

Not familiar with sodomy laws are you? Or the opinions of people like Tony Perkis?

I don't see what sodomy has to do with cancelling lunch due to lack of hustle. Deal with it.

[StormChaser]

Marriage is not a human right any more than Communion.

Marriage is not a religious item/term, communion is.

This vote is a screw you to people that others don't like. Just like when race was not allowed to do certain things, it was an attack on someone else's person. NOT something where you were protecting your own rights in any way. If gay marriage affected anyone else I would think differently but since a gay marriage doesn't change my marriage to Nina in any way I should have no say about if someone else can be married together.

Government should make sure peoples rights are protected and that people are not taking rights away from others. In this case it is just taking rights away from others, in no way is it protecting any persons rights. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed off I would be if, while my wife and I were planning our wedding, my neighbors came to me and said, "Dave, we all took a vote and decided you don't have a right to get married."

[Juiced6]

Lets keep the religion bashing to a minimum please!!

Just because Democrats may hold a majority in the state says nothing about why this bill passed. If you think all democrats support all causes by their party your just as stupid as the people who think all conservatives are bigoted hate mongers who hate the poor.

What you are seeing, Obama's election being an exclusion, is how North Carolina actually votes. You could say Obama will get destroyed in this swing state.

i would be curious to how this would have been voted on had it been on the november ballot when everyone votes not a primary that sees maybe half. (obviously a good portion of the population in every state chooses not to vote - it is a real shame too)

[zukiphile]

I were planning our wedding, my neighbors came to me and said, "Dave, we all took a vote and decided you don't have a right to get married."

Did this happen? We are all wondering.

[StormChaser]

Did this happen? We are all wondering.

Nope, all went according to plan...run 3.5 miles...get married, run 4 miles.

[GTiTOM]

That's a powerful argument against stereotyping people.

If the shoe fits, I guess

We agree that not making provision for SSM doesn't ban any relationships, right?

When did I say it did?

[GTiTOM]

I don't see what sodomy has to do with cancelling lunch due to lack of hustle. Deal with it.

I had to look that up to get the reference

I meant Tony Perkins

[2VWatatime]

Nope, all went according to plan...run 3.5 miles...get married, run 4 miles.

Nor does A1 impact any of that, regardless of sex - it's a matter of state recognition. Most here can't seem to understand that simple concept.

[Fritz27]

I don't see what sodomy has to do with cancelling lunch due to lack of hustle. Deal with it.

Epic.

[winstonsmith84]

Marriage is not a religious item/term, communion is.

Uh, um.... no. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. When secular society talks about marriage, what they are really talking about is a civil union. The church is free to deny a gay couple the sacrament, the state can not deny that same couple the legal protections of a civil union. Since the state ain't in the business of baptizing or setting up rules regarding such, I'm awful confused as to why they get to set up rules about other sacraments.

[Notch__Johnson]

Leviticus 18:6
Leviticus 18:7
1 Corinthians 5:1
Genesis 19:30-36


All verses against incest, yet its still legal in the state.

[rsj0714]

i would be curious to how this would have been voted on had it been on the november ballot when everyone votes not a primary that sees maybe half. (obviously a good portion of the population in every state chooses not to vote - it is a real shame too)

It would have been a bit closer but beliefs on gay marriage don't really follow party belief lines in a southern state.

i agree it is a shame, but the good thing about our system is decisions can be changed with another vote sometime in the future.

[Air-over-water]

Uh, um.... no. Marriage is a sacrament of the church.

Uh, um.... no.

[joness0154]

We agree that not making provision for SSM doesn't ban any relationships, right?

But it certainly denies individuals in same sex relationships the same rights afforded to other (married) couples by the state.

That certainly is discrimination. I can't wait until all the old fogies die off, it'll be a benefit to society.

[zukiphile]

We agree that not making provision for SSM doesn't ban any relationships, right?

When did I say it did?

Looks as if you didn't understand the question. I didn't assert that you thought not making provision for SSM banned relationships, so asking when you "said" it isn't sensible.

See?

Now, care to answer the question?