North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[James Madison]

Why was my last post deleted?

 

[cstarace]

Why was my last post deleted?

Probably because you wished harm upon people who espoused certain positions.

 

[James Madison]

Probably because you wished harm upon people who espoused certain positions.

I didn't wish them harm. Their indifference to issues that actually matter will be the death of us all. I simply said that I wouldn't feel sorry for them.

 

[jmdrake]

Ha, easy for you to say! A lesbian couple that can't get the same benefits for being married would beg to differ.

Except actually they can. I explained that in great detail. You cut out what you either didn't understand or didn't want to try to understand. The short of it is that every legitimate right of marriage can be gained through contract. There are other "benefits" which are not legitimate rights because they shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be an income tax in the first place. Health insurance shouldn't be tied to employment. Instead health insurance should be like car insurance where it's something the individual buys on their own and can shop around for. Without the employer "group policy" issue, gay couples would be able to find policies that fit their definition of "family". Social Security should be an individual savings account that you can leave to your dog if you want.

The real question Ben is why you are so insistent on discriminating against heterosexual polygamist couples? Because by advocating for one group, without equally advocating for the other, is by definition discrimination.

Did you know that even the gay republican group GOProud is not advocating for gay marriage? They've taken the same approach I have of instead advocating getting the federal government detangled. And every benefit that's discriminatory is happening at the federal level, not the state level.

You know what, I bet there were people making the argument that interracial marriage was "unnatural" or "not good for raising children" back in the 60's.

I'm sure there were. What's your point? You certainly haven't countered anything I've said by raising it. Oh, and prior to Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage was actually illegal as in you could be put in prison for it. No gay couple gets put in prison anywhere in the U.S. for getting married. Polygamist families face prison though. Again you show your bias against heterosexual polygamist couples by ignoring their plight while advocating to expand a system that discriminates against them. You polybigot.

 

[jmdrake]

Marriage licenses are still being used that way. It's just that race isn't the issue of the day anymore.

Prior to Loving v. Virginia interracial couples faced arrest for getting married in some states. Polygamists still face arrest. When's the last time a gay couple got arrested for getting married?

 

[jmdrake]

Last time I checked libertarians were for individual rights not state rights. That being said I am kinda glad this got passed. Because now it can go to the supreme court like it should and we can finally get a ruling on it that will hopefully set the bar for other states.

Not if Ron Paul get's his way. You know one of the bills he proposed would strip the Supreme Court of the ability to hear such a case right?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.539:

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as `We the People Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.
(2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.
(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.
(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).
(10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.

Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.
SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

 

[Brett85]

You're again being intentionally obtuse. Did those words ever come out of my mouth?

Then how can you possibly say that the 14th amendment applies to gays when the intention of the 14th amendment was to free the slaves?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

At least it's a state law. Which means guess what? You can turn around next year and repeal it.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Except actually they can. I explained that in great detail. You cut out what you either didn't understand or didn't want to try to understand. The short of it is that every legitimate right of marriage can be gained through contract.

But they have to go through a lot more shit than straight couples. For straight couples, the second they get their license, they have all kinds of joint benefits with insurance, taxes, etc. Gay couples have to tackle each thing individually and write up a contract. Not fair at all. Adults are adults, partnerships are partnerships, state shouldn't discriminate between them.

Sorry I'm not advocating as strongly for polygamy rights. I'm just really pissed that my state has decided to engage in the culture wars instead of dealing with real problems.

 

[TheTexan]

Oh the south

Oh the entire country

 

[Ranger29860]

Not if Ron Paul get's his way. You know one of the bills he proposed would strip the Supreme Court of the ability to hear such a case right?

[/i]

Hmm I was not aware of that bill. That being said I am curious as to the motivation there. If had to go off of what Paul has said on the matter I would think that this is to try to take steps to abolish state or federal involvement in marriage. If the supreme court can't here it then that implies to me that there is no government authority to decide on marriage to begin with. Because the supreme courts purpose was exactly this to here cases to see if state and federal laws are constitutional or not.

I would LOVE for there to be no involvement in marriage contracts at any level and I believe that this is how it should happen. That being said we do have the issue of how are we suppose to get this done when there is a majority (getting smaller) in this country that fights to keep these laws on the book in order for there religious views to take precedence.

The whole thing is really sad. This is because the gays rights movement started at the same time the civil rights movement really got going. But civil rights took precedence over gay right for a slew of reason that I don't necessarily disagree with. But there has been a lot of headway in the last two decades specifically the repeal of sodomy laws. This could have all gone away 50 years ago if instead of asking for rights for blacks to marry whites or fight the equal but sperate laws we could have just repealed government involvement in the first place.

Of course the argument is that if you don't make laws against it then there will be rampant discrimination. I can tell you from first hand experiance there will ALWAYS be discrimination against the LBGT community and Blacks. Yes it pisses me off when I am talked to about how my "lifestyle" is wrong and deviant and should not be condoned but I really doubt the way to change peoples attitudes is to force them to accept it.

But if the law is already on the books it needs to go to the supreme court. But the catch is they should just rule whether THAT law is unconstitutional because it both openly discriminates for contracts and isa violation of religiouse rights and there should be no marriage laws. Sadly that won't be the ruling, they will probably just rule that the actually idea of gay marriage is legal helping build the case for state involvement in marriage and not the enforcement of contracts.

Like I said before what most Christians would consider to be gay marriage is LEGAL in like 48 states already. Most of them know this to which really strikes me as odd. Sex changes are legal for individuals who do not even have a confirmable inter-sexed condition(hermaphroditic). So I wonder where the outrage is from this is? I think all this boils down to religious institutions who have WAY to much free-time.

 

[asurfaholic]

You polybigot.

No. You. Dii-ennt...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

IF the state is going to be in the business of regulating contracts, then it should allow people to make those contracts with any gender.

The state is not restricting you from making a contract with your partner (of any gender). It is restricting the government from making a contract with said partners in order to force taxpayers to give them money and benefits. They shouldn't do this with any couples. It isn't a matter of "as long as we're doing such and such, such and such should be done equally." This is a matter of, the government should get out of it. Those encouraging the government to force taxpayers to pay for gay marriages as well as heterosexual ones are moving in the wrong directioin. Wouldn't it be just as easy to say "Get the government out of regulating heterosexual marriages"? Why not do that? Why are we telling the government to give out MORE taxpayer benefits when we could be telling them to give out LESS?

 

[speciallyblend]

while folks are losing jobs, becoming homeless, one paycheck away from starving or being homeless. Let's ban gay marriage. what a fin joke on america! people making this an issue should be tarred and feathered. Instead of talking about illegal wars, jobs, and down right hopelessness. Let us all direct our energy into peoples private lives. laughable. a bunch of bi-sexuals trying to be straight if you ask me.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

For the reduction of Social Security liabilities, I'm sure that you support making same-sex marriage the only legal form of marriage. By your logic, it's far better than allowing opposite-sex marriage.



Also, your argument is nonsensical. Every American is capable of being married or not being married, regardless of gender or sexual preference. They could marry a person at random purely for the benefits. Should that be illegal?

It should be illegal for the government to give out those benefits in the first place. No law required.

Also, you're not getting the point about Social Security liabilities. The point is not "Which benefactor of social security is less in number." The point is, "We don't need more social security liability." I'm sure erowe would tell you that he doesn't support social security for opposite sex couples either, granted that his position is based on liberty.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

the bible also says you shouldnt eat shellfish or sleep with a woman on her period,
do you think those should be laws?

*facepalm*

I believe he made the point in that very same post, that he doesn't believe the Bible should be the ruler of America. Ah, here it is:

Does America have to be ruled by the Bible? Of course not.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Really? Have you read it?



Not recognized by the state. Recognized in the state. You don't see the potential consequences of that?

If gay people in North Carolina enter into contracts that resemble "marriage," then the judicial system in the state is prohibited from recognizing those contracts as valid.

If hetero couples tried to get married without getting a government license, I doubt the judicial system would recognize those as valid either.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Explain how each of these is a privilege:

* joint parenting;

We must ask the state for permission? State is father? State is mother?

* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

The state decides who are next of kin is?

* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

The state is a third party in these private agreements?

* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

The state disposes of our estates (property) as it sees fit?

* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

The state disposes of our bodies?

* and more....

You claimed the "and more..." are all "government privileges"?


Explain yourself or you are going in the bucket!!!

The privilege is the recognition of the state. You are making this way more complicated than it is.

The person who made that list in the first place was talking about the government sanctions that come with heterosexual marriages. If these did not come with ANY marriages, it wouldn't be an issue. He was clearly referring to the government privilege that is granted in heterosexual cases and not homosexual ones. None of these "rights" are taken away by this bill unless you think these rights come only from the government and cannot be attained outside of government.

And no, I still don't think those are rights. You aren't entitled to insurance of any kind. People need to get the definitions straight because it does matter. Also, it is very easy for homosexual couples to get joint home and auto insurance. That difference is purely fictional.

 

[Revolution9]

Not sure if Don Lapre was being sarcastic or not (I hope he was), but it HAS always puzzled me why people often only talk about MALE same-sex marriage as being "nasty", not female. It's quite a telling phenomenon.

There are three kinds of sperm. Breeders, nookers and killers. The nookers and killers are the worrisome little buggers in male to male anal sex. The reason being if that the nookers look for nooks and folds to nest into so the breeders do not get lost in dead end alleys. The killers find the other sperm that does not belong to that genetic and proceeds to genetically assassinate them so that the breeders have no competition at the egg. Basically wipes out their defenses chemically. So, the nooker will decay i the nooks and the killers will release chemicals to kill the others sperm..it is inside the producer now.

On the other hand, there is only one kind of pussy juice. It works well with the three kinds of sperm.

Now...go figure.

HTH
Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Aren't homophobic people technically closet gays themselves? I mean, come on...

What guy DOESN'T want hot lesbian-bisexual chicks and walking the streets!?

Anyone who is against this, are gay!!!!

Pfft. I think it's a waste of good pussy time.

Rev9