View Full Version : Ban on Gay Marriage Gets on North Carolina Ballot
bobbyw24
09-14-2011, 04:41 AM
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.
http://justdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gay-rights-button.jpg
The state Senate voted 30-16 in favor of putting the question on the statewide primary ballot—the minimum number of yes votes needed to meet the three-fifths majority for such amendments. The House approved the measure Monday with a few votes to spare.
The proposal also would bar the state from sanctioning civil unions.
North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast without such a prohibition in its constitution. State law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Still, amendment supporters argue that traditional marriage would be better protected against potential legal challenges by same-sex couples in six other states and the District of Columbia.
Thirty states have a gay marriage ban in their constitutions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576569193270225576.html
jonhowe
09-14-2011, 05:16 AM
It's during the REPUBLICAN primary... of course it will pass.
Ugh.
phill4paul
09-14-2011, 06:18 AM
I live in N.C. and will be voting no to this amendment. The government should not be in the marriage business. Period. It is a church/faith function and as such should remain one.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?282567-Preparing-a-floor-speech-against-SB106-NC-Definition-of-Marriage-Amendment
BuddyRey
09-14-2011, 06:55 AM
Thanks for letting us know about this. It'll probably pass, but I'll be raising a ruckus about it to my friends and family in the meantime. It's also very easy to become an ordained minister for free online, so if you know any couples (straight or gay) who wish to be married outside the state apparatus before this ban takes effect, you can officiate the nuptials yourself, or PM me for more info.
It's also very easy to become an ordained minister for free online, so if you know any couples (straight or gay) who wish to be married outside the state apparatus before this ban takes effect, you can officiate the nuptials yourself, or PM me for more info.
Gay marriage is already banned in NC by statute.
Krugerrand
09-14-2011, 07:23 AM
I live in N.C. and will be voting no to this amendment. The government should not be in the marriage business. Period. It is a church/faith function and as such should remain one.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?282567-Preparing-a-floor-speech-against-SB106-NC-Definition-of-Marriage-Amendment
Are you suggesting marriage is not possible for atheists?
BuddyRey
09-14-2011, 07:26 AM
Gay marriage is already banned in NC by statute.
I assumed it was. But I still support the idea of the independent clergy taking back their own discretionary prerogative over marriage from the state and conducting them anyway. I'll offer my own services as a minister if the opportunity ever presents itself.
scrosnoe
09-14-2011, 08:32 AM
This thread is very disturbing to me. I do not want anything to do with promoting gay 'rights'.
This thread is very disturbing to me. I do not want anything to do with promoting gay 'rights'.
No such thing as "gay rights". The only rights are individual rights.
erowe1
09-14-2011, 08:40 AM
Really?
What specific actions does this bill ban? Does it ban gay people having weddings? Living together? Sharing their expenses? Having sex?
I'm guessing it doesn't ban anything at all. It probably just legislates keeping the government out of those arrangements two gay people make with each other, which is as it should be.
jmdrake
09-14-2011, 08:48 AM
I assumed it was. But I still support the idea of the independent clergy taking back their own discretionary prerogative over marriage from the state and conducting them anyway. I'll offer my own services as a minister if the opportunity ever presents itself.
Ummm....so why do they need to contact you before this so called "ban"? Won't it be just as legal for you to preform a private ceremony that doesn't have the official sanction of the state after this "ban"? If you really want to be advantaged try to marry three people. Or try to marry a couple of gay brothers or sisters.
Won't it be just as legal for you to preform a private ceremony that doesn't have the official sanction of the state after this "ban"?
It's already illegal.
N.C.G.S § 51‑6. Solemnization without license unlawful.
No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.
erowe1
09-14-2011, 09:05 AM
It's not legal now.
N.C.G.S § 51‑6. Solemnization without license unlawful.
No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.
That law should absolutely be repealed. What is the penalty for people who break it?
That law should absolutely be repealed. What is the penalty for people who break it?
§ 51‑7. Penalty for solemnizing without license.
Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (R.C., c. 68, ss. 6, 13; 1871‑2, c. 193, s. 8; Code, s. 1817; Rev., ss. 2087, 3372; C.S., s. 2499; 1953, c. 638, s. 1; 1967, c. 957, s. 5; 1993, c. 539, s. 415; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001‑62, s. 7.)
phill4paul
09-14-2011, 09:24 AM
Are you suggesting marriage is not possible for atheists?
Not in the least. I could see were my post may be interpreted that way but...no.
jmdrake
09-14-2011, 02:04 PM
It's already illegal.
N.C.G.S § 51‑6. Solemnization without license unlawful.
No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.
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).
aGameOfThrones
09-14-2011, 03:31 PM
This thread is very disturbing to me. I do not want anything to do with promoting gay 'rights'.
You mean to extend the privilege of state licensing of marriage to gays, right?
asurfaholic
09-14-2011, 03:43 PM
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).
How did we go from homosexual marriage to incestuous inter-family marriage??
speciallyblend
09-14-2011, 03:46 PM
ban all marriages and ban neo-cons to!!
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
09-14-2011, 04:58 PM
I happen to believe in individual rights for ALL people, not just the ones the Christian god likes.
jmdrake
09-14-2011, 05:15 PM
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
09-14-2011, 05:19 PM
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.
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
09-14-2011, 05:53 PM
No such thing as "gay rights". The only rights are individual rights.
Darn straight....er.. so to speak...
+ green
Bunkloco
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
09-14-2011, 06:15 PM
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.
:D 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
09-14-2011, 06:27 PM
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
09-14-2011, 06:31 PM
How did we go from homosexual marriage to incestuous inter-family marriage??
You mean intra-family* marriage.
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
09-14-2011, 06:56 PM
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
09-14-2011, 07:00 PM
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
09-14-2011, 07:15 PM
WOOHOO! Let's reinforce every negative about Republicans, yet again. Fuck this gay earth (no pun intended).
madfoot
09-14-2011, 07:16 PM
Only if the option to vote "NO" is not on the ballot. Last I heard, it will be...
Tyranny of the majority, bro.
jonhowe
09-14-2011, 08:09 PM
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
09-14-2011, 08:25 PM
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
09-14-2011, 08:34 PM
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
09-14-2011, 08:36 PM
I still find it funny that such religious folks are perfectly ok with God requiring government approval to bless a union.
jmdrake
09-14-2011, 08:41 PM
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.
:rolleyes: 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?
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.
You pretty much made my point. Since it is meaningless, there is no point in having BuddyRey perform a ceremony.
jmdrake
09-14-2011, 09:32 PM
You pretty much made my point. Since it is meaningless, there is no point in having BuddyRey perform a ceremony.
Well if a ceremony only has meaning if it is approved by the government then bar-mitzphahs are meaningless also.
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.
And this sums up the problem, and shows how arbitrary the laws on marriage are. Although if you want to ban people based on gene pool problems, we also should bar people with inheritable conditions like Huntington's disease from procreating.
jmdrake
09-15-2011, 08:32 AM
And this sums up the problem, and shows how arbitrary the laws on marriage are. Although if you want to ban people based on gene pool problems, we also should bar people with inheritable conditions like Huntington's disease from procreating.
I expressed no desire to ban people from marrying based on gene pool problems. I used the "gay incest" example because if I had just said "incest" other people would have brought up the gene issue. The not so subtle point that I was making with that is that secularists try to say some people are "hateful" for recoiling at same sex marriage, but many of those same secularists recoil an incest for no better or worse reason.
As for the laws being arbitrary that's my point. Arbitrary laws on marriage in N.C. simultaneously allow official heterosexual marriage, allow unofficial homosexual marriage, disallow official homosexual marriage and criminalize unofficial heterosexual marriage.
Think of it this way. Imagine 4 couples. The first is a traditional heterosexual couple Bob and Sue. The second is a gay couple that wants to be traditional Sally and Jane. The third is a heterosexual libertarian couple Rick and Lisa. The fourth is a gay libertarian couple Tom and Phil. The traditional couples want state approved weddings. The libertarian couples would rather keep the state entirely out of their marriage. They don't want a marriage license. Bob and Sue are fine. They can be married by Rev. BuddyRey. Sally and Jane can be married to, but the state won't recognize their marriage. Tom and Phil can be married, the state won't recognize their marriage and they don't care. But the libertarian heterosexual couple Rick and Lisa? If Rev. BuddyRey attempts to marry them without a license he faces a fine and jail time. North Carolina discriminates against heterosexual couples that don't want the state involved in their marriage. The answer? Get the state all the way out. But some folks are too worried about Sally and Jane to give a flip about Rick and Lisa.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.