North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Revolution9]

LOL!! Welcome to the Internet!

By the way, marriage isn't an "institution" it's nothing more than a religious ceremony wrapped around a legal agreement. It means nothing, but taking away those legal rights, that means something.

Marriage has been around as long as culture and exists in the darkest heart of the jungle where governments have never tread. That is an institution based on natural relationships that contribute to the life of the tribe an community and celebrated as such.. By life I do not mean parties and gaiety. I mean genetic progeny. Family is all that carries on. Not honor, not awards, not duty, not country. . Only family...regardless of what thick headed americans want to cogitate and fulminate about it.

Rev9

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Except your engaging in the culture war yourself. You've just picked a different side than the majority of the people in your state. If you would follow Ron Paul's lead of arguing for individual rights (i.e. disentangling the federal government from marriage) instead of group rights "Oh the poor lesbians have to jump through hoops to get 'benefits' that nobody should be getting anyway") then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Take the Ron Paul individual rights approach and nobody is discriminated against. Take the liberal approach and discrimination is exacerbated.

 

[jmdrake]

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 a father signs a durable power of attorney for healthcare naming his son as his attorney in fact, does this law prohibit that? No! The same is true if a gay person signs a durable power of attorney for healthcare naming his partner as his attorney in fact. A contract doesn't have to "resemble" marriage in order to grant basic rights established by default through marriage. The whole problem with this debate is that people are wanting to be defined by who they sleep with rather than taking steps that they can legally take in all 50 states to protect their interests. Yes there are other "benefits" defined by the federal government that gay couples in states like North Carolina can't get. The answer to this problem? Shrink the size of the federal government to its constitutionally allowed bounds!

 

[AbVag]

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]

So, we have a confusion here. What Ron Paul is planning there is closer to individual rights than having it go to the supreme court. Leaving it to the states is the closest you can get to individual rights from a federal position. On the federal level, there would need to be a respect for states' rights. On the state level is where the focus on individual rights comes into play. And the states have their own courts system. California used theirs to overturn prop 8. Not to say NC will do the same, but Ron would be right in letting states permit or reject what they choose. I can choose to keep away from that state with a ten foot pole.

While it's sad to see homosexuality treated that way, it's equally sad in the idea that people should be forced to accept it.

 

[jmdrake]

So, we have a confusion here. What Ron Paul is planning there is closer to individual rights than having it go to the supreme court. Leaving it to the states is the closest you can get to individual rights from a federal position. On the federal level, there would need to be a respect for states' rights. On the state level is where the focus on individual rights comes into play. And the states have their own courts system. California used theirs to overturn prop 8. Not to say NC will do the same, but Ron would be right in letting states permit or reject what they choose. I can choose to keep away from that state with a ten foot pole.

While it's sad to see homosexuality treated that way, it's equally sad in the idea that people should be forced to accept it.

Have you read this from Dr. Paul? See the part in bold.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Oct 1, 2004

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.

If I were in Congress

in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president's signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

I doubt Dr. Paul approves of what happened in California either. His view seems to be:

1) Let the legislature legislate. "Rogue" judges whether state or federal shouldn't be making the decision.
2) Keep this at the state level.
3) Disentangle the government from marriage as much as possible. (And frankly I see no reason for the government to be entangled in marriage at all).

It's funny to see people trying to re-interpret Dr. Paul to fit their own views.

 

[jmdrake]

The bill speaks for itself. So do speeches by Dr. Paul on the subject of marriage.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102976.html

He's not interested in "rogue judges", be they federal or state, imposing their own definition of marriage on everyone else. The way out of this mess that respects everybody's liberty is to shrink the federal government to remove the federal entanglements with marriage. Every "benefit" of marriage that I can think of that cannot be achieved through private contracts is conferred directly by, or caused indirectly by policies of the federal government. Get rid of this federal influence and it will no longer matter whether or not state X "recognizes" gay marriage.

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.

 

[farreri]

Boycott North Carolina.

Better yet, introduce a bill banning Straight marriage in North Carolina.