Ban on Gay Marriage Gets on North Carolina Ballot

[Rael]

Well technically the law you quoted only applies to heterosexual couples. So BuddyRey is free under that law to marry two brothers (as sick as that is).

Nope. two reasons:

§ 51‑1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid.

Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 588, s. 1.)

also

§ 51‑3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages.

All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void

 

[bill1971]

I happen to believe in individual rights for ALL people, not just the ones the Christian god likes.

 

[jmdrake]

Nope. two reasons:

§ 51‑1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid.

Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 588, s. 1.)

also

§ 51‑3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages.

All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void

You're missing the point. There is a difference between saying a marriage is "void" and saying that you'll arrest and/or fine someone for performing said marriage. You've found a law saying that a minister can be fined and charged with a misdemeanor if he performs a wedding ceremony between a man and a woman and they don't have a license. It does not say he'll be arrested if he performs a ceremony between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and they don't have a license. The marriage is not legal, but performing the ceremony is not illegal. And that's pretty screwed up if you ask me. A couple of brothers can get married under this law and their marriage will be void but the ceremony will not be illegal. If a brother and sister gets married...send in the S.W.A.T. team.

 

[jmdrake]

How did we go from homosexual marriage to incestuous inter-family marriage??

Incestuous inter-family marriage between two brothers or two sisters is still homosexual marriage. I know people don't want to go there because in our politically correct society one is "acceptable" and the other is not. In reality, what's the difference? There's no gene pool problem because they can't by themselves reproduce anyway. There's an "ick" factor, but in our post-modern politically correct "Nobody should say anything about what two consenting adults do" society, why should that even matter?

Anyway, the point that I was making is under the N.C. law being quoted, people BuddyRey could perform any marriage ceremony he wanted to without a license, unless it's a heterosexual couple. The irony of this seems to be lost on everyone here but me.

 

[Rael]

The marriage is not legal, but performing the ceremony is not illegal. And that's pretty screwed up if you ask me. A couple of brothers can get married under this law and their marriage will be void but the ceremony will not be illegal. If a brother and sister gets married...send in the S.W.A.T. team.

Who cares if the ceremony is legal? It's meaningless. It has as much authority as me holding a ceremony to marry two dogs.

 

[bunklocoempire]

No such thing as "gay rights". The only rights are individual rights.

Darn straight....er.. so to speak...

+ green



Bunkloco

 

[-C-]

Shouldn't have to go to the gov't to ask their permission to love someone, they shouldn't be involved in "licensing" marriages at all anyway. What I believe in regards to "gays" doesn't even matter in that regard, simply put the government has no business in pairing people....

 

[bunklocoempire]

Incestuous inter-family marriage between two brothers or two sisters is still homosexual marriage. I know people don't want to go there because in our politically correct society one is "acceptable" and the other is not. In reality, what's the difference? There's no gene pool problem because they can't by themselves reproduce anyway. There's an "ick" factor, but in our post-modern politically correct "Nobody should say anything about what two consenting adults do" society, why should that even matter?

Anyway, the point that I was making is under the N.C. law being quoted, people BuddyRey could perform any marriage ceremony he wanted to without a license, unless it's a heterosexual couple. The irony of this seems to be lost on everyone here but me.

Naw.

It's way too easy to just ignore "marriage"/"love" and simply think contract.

Folks don't always like doing things the easy way.






Bunkloco

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Are you suggesting marriage is not possible for atheists?

I believe he's suggesting that it depends on the churches whether they can marry. If the government isn't in it, then why would the atheists bother?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How did we go from homosexual marriage to incestuous inter-family marriage??

You mean intra-family* marriage.

 

[Rael]

w

Shouldn't have to go to the gov't to ask their permission to love someone, they shouldn't be involved in "licensing" marriages at all anyway. What I believe in regards to "gays" doesn't even matter in that regard, simply put the government has no business in pairing people....

This.

 

[musicmax]

RALEIGH, N.C.—North Carolina voters will get to decide next May on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage after the Legislature gave final approval to the question Tuesday, despite protests that the question promoted intolerance and discrimination.

Only if the option to vote "NO" is not on the ballot. Last I heard, it will be...

 

[Vessol]

Shouldn't have to go to the gov't to ask their permission to love someone, they shouldn't be involved in "licensing" marriages at all anyway. What I believe in regards to "gays" doesn't even matter in that regard, simply put the government has no business in pairing people....

^^

 

[madfoot]

WOOHOO! Let's reinforce every negative about Republicans, yet again. Fuck this gay earth (no pun intended).

 

[madfoot]

Only if the option to vote "NO" is not on the ballot. Last I heard, it will be...

Tyranny of the majority, bro.

 

[jonhowe]

This thread is very disturbing to me. I do not want anything to do with promoting gay 'rights'.

Gays are individuals. Individuals have rights. If the government was DENYING rights to gays, saying "I support gay rights" would clearly mean that you support the protection of the rights of these individuals.

That being said, marriage is not a realm of the government in my mind, and NO ONE should have to get a license to be married.

I happen to support gay marriage in states the currently control marriage (which is all of them, I believe), but would rather just see it taken out of the government sector.

 

[jmdrake]

Who cares if the ceremony is legal? It's meaningless. It has as much authority as me holding a ceremony to marry two dogs.

Well BuddyRey might care if he actually started doing unauthorized weddings. If he did them for gays they would be meaningless. If he did them for straights they would be meaningless and he could go to jail and/or pay a fine. I'm not sure why don't get this.

 

[reillym]

Gays are individuals. Individuals have rights. If the government was DENYING rights to gays, saying "I support gay rights" would clearly mean that you support the protection of the rights of these individuals.

That being said, marriage is not a realm of the government in my mind, and NO ONE should have to get a license to be married.

I happen to support gay marriage in states the currently control marriage (which is all of them, I believe), but would rather just see it taken out of the government sector.

Exactly. But watch out, the hateful bigots here (jmdrake) will pounce on you if you say the least thing accepting about homosexuals because all they do is marry their brother and have sex with animals according to him.

 

[AbVag]

I still find it funny that such religious folks are perfectly ok with God requiring government approval to bless a union.

 

[jmdrake]

Exactly. But watch out, the hateful bigots here (jmdrake) will pounce on you if you say the least thing accepting about homosexuals because all they do is marry their brother and have sex with animals according to him.

You know if you weren't such a stupid idiot and not worth my time I'd sue you for libel. Where did I say anything about sex with animals or that all gays want to marry their brothers? Some do, some don't just like some straight people. If you had an IQ larger than a child's shoe size you would understand the point. There is no more of a legal justification to bar gay incest than there is to bar gay marriage. Heterosexual incest theoretically should be barred because of gene pool problems. Sex with animals could be barred on the idea that animals can't consent. (Although Dannno posted a radio clip that suggested otherwise. And if you think Dannno hates gays then you're even dumber than I could ever imagine).

Edit: Of course I have to ask why you hate gay brothers who love each other? You hateful bigot. Are they not individuals?