North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[mport1]

Another disgusting example of people believing they have the authority to control the lives of other peaceful human beings. When will people learn that when you attempt to control others, you will eventually be the one being controlled?

I'm truly baffled by the support for these bans. While flawed, I can understand arguments for many other statist programs. However, I cannot understand how anyone can be in favor of this.

North Carolina OKs constitutional same-sex marriage ban (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-oks-constitutional-same-sex-marriage-ban?lite)

[dillo]

Oh the south

[Don Lapre]

However, I cannot understand how anyone can be in favor of this.

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

[teacherone]

States can be tyrannical too.

At least it's easier to move out.

[asurfaholic]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

Haha, made me laugh.

Actually, I think its much simpler than that. Nobody here knows what the law was about. All you see are signs that say "on may 8, vote for/against the marraige amendment." So, naturally people are like, well.. I don't think gays should get married, so I vote for this.

It was sold in a way that made ordinary christains feel obligated to support it.

Btw, at least its kinda being done right... we all support states rights, and at least its not the fed govt mandating one way or another (yet). The people of NC voted to make the state especially strict on gays, and other domestic partners. If you don't like it, don't live here.

I don't agree with the law, but gay people are just overwhelmingly not welcome into this state...

[SwooshOU]

Btw, at least its kinda being done right... we all support states rights, and at least its not the fed govt mandating one way or another (yet). The people of NC voted to make the state especially strict on gays, and other domestic partners. If you don't like it, don't live here.

I don't agree with the law, but gay people are just overwhelmingly not welcome into this state...

This is what I was thinking.

[jonhowe]

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.

[Southron]

Better the state decide it's own laws than a group of federal judges.

The title should read NC Bans Gay Marriage Licenses unless marriage is an institution solely created and defined by the government. If the moral authority for your marriage depends upon government approval, then you have a weak case to start with.

[Tankbot85]

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/funny-celebrity-pictures-funny-how-that-works.jpg

makes me sad.

[erowe1]

Another disgusting example of people believing they have the authority to control the lives of other peaceful human beings. When will people learn that when you attempt to control others, you will eventually be the one being controlled?

I'm truly baffled by the support for these bans. While flawed, I can understand arguments for many other statist programs. However, I cannot understand how anyone can be in favor of this.

North Carolina OKs constitutional same-sex marriage ban (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-oks-constitutional-same-sex-marriage-ban?lite)

This isn't a statist program. State-based Gay marriage is a statist program, and this prohibits North Carolina from engaging in it.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

[DamianTV]

People tend to get pissy when someone else comes into their homes and tells them how to live, but it is always okay for them to stick their noses in other peoples business and tell them (or arrest them if they disobey) what to feed their kids, what to name their cats, and who and what they can have sex with.

I now pronounce you Man and Vacuum Cleaner!

[LibertyEagle]

People tend to get pissy when someone else comes into their homes and tells them how to live, but it is always okay for them to stick their noses in other peoples business and tell them (or arrest them if they disobey) what to feed their kids, what to name their cats, and who and what they can have sex with.

I now pronounce you Man and Vacuum Cleaner!

Your comment makes no sense.

[LibertyEagle]

// dup

[Don Lapre]

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

I agree.

[Origanalist]

Another disgusting example of people believing they have the authority to control the lives of other peaceful human beings. When will people learn that when you attempt to control others, you will eventually be the one being controlled?

I'm truly baffled by the support for these bans. While flawed, I can understand arguments for many other statist programs. However, I cannot understand how anyone can be in favor of this.

North Carolina OKs constitutional same-sex marriage ban (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-oks-constitutional-same-sex-marriage-ban?lite)

Don't live in North Carolina.

[Origanalist]

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

There is the real answer to this rather new controversy.

[chudrockz]

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.

That's because two (or more) men is disgusting and sick, while two (or more) women is just darn hot!

(And yes, I *am* being sarcastic.)

:)

[Dianne]

In my opinion, this vote and movement to bann same sex marriage throughout the country is being driven by the insurance industry and other special interest groups; i.e., the U.S. Government for example.

Imagine millions of same sex partners that marry, and now reap the benefits of being a dependent with reduced insurance premiums on the spouse's health insurance policy. What about social security benefits for dependents.

Being from North Carolina myself, I can assure you the politicians here initiate nothing unless there is an ulterior motive that will benefit them or their owners.

Of course they know to play upon the religious "Santorum type" nut jobs to carry the banner, and make it a moral issue rather than a financial issue.

Well all of us in North Carolina can sleep much better tonight, knowing we are now safe from two same sex lovers; who dare to commit to a lifetime together.

[chudrockz]

As an interesting aside, isn't Don Lapre that guy who was in the tv commercials maybe fifteen or twenty years ago who always said "I can show you how to make MORE MONEY THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE places hundreds of TINY LITTLE ADS in newspapers" or some such thing?

Are you that guy? That would be pretty sweet.

[Ranger29860]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

Don Lapre!!!!!

I knew the second I read the title you would magicly appear.

To anyone that is not aware he is 100% seriouse and has brought us such gems in the past such as:
It's not a victory for personal liberty because LIBERTY would be the state being completely OUT of the marriage business.

The state is already eyeballs deep in our business by being IN the marriage business, and now, by adding b*ttf*cking deviants to their marriage logs, they've taken a bad situation (state involved in marriage) and created a HUGE clusterfuck of complication and implication.

Just wait and watch what happens a few years down the road.

The implications of fundamentally changing the definition of marriage - legally, economically, and socially, are enormous.

NO friend to liberty.

And lets not forget this wonderfull logic:
Yes.

Riddle me this, Ranger.

Do homosexuals engage in b'f'ing?

That'd be a yes.

Would it then be "bigoted" to call them b'f'ers?

That'd be a no.


Is male on male anal intercouse a deviant act?

I'd guess a majority of Americans would say so.

Deviant fits.


B'f'ing deviant.

It's on the mark.

That's not bigotry.

It's reality.

Don't fear it.


I'm not speaking of that in this thread, though.

YOU brought that here.

I'm speaking of homosexual adoption.

So I will say you are still very consistent and I really don't think your a troll. IF you are a troll damn you are dedicated.

*edit*
The weird thing is I agree with him 100% on no government involvement in marriage. I don't thin anyone has ever disagreed with him there. He just likes to come in and really rail on homosexuality.

[V3n]

As an interesting aside, isn't Don Lapre that guy who was in the tv commercials maybe fifteen or twenty years ago who always said "I can show you how to make MORE MONEY THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE places hundreds of TINY LITTLE ADS in newspapers" or some such thing?

Are you that guy? That would be pretty sweet.

That Don Lapre died last October.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lapre

I don't believe the government should be in the marriage business, period.
I also don't believe the government should be in the business of defining words.

[DEGuy]

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.
+ Rep
That's really the issue here. What's stopping two people from saying they are married and presenting themselves to friends and family as such? Nothing. Nothing but a taboo against any marriage except for a government sanctioned marriage. We have the right to freedom of speech, therefore everyone is able to decide what their definition of marriage is. If Suzie down in HR says, "I'm married to my job and my terrier is my child," no one objects to that definition of marriage.

If only more people were a little more libertarian, we'd all be asking the government just to get out of marriage and discriminating against certain individuals because they don't meet the government sanctioned definition of marriage. To be fair, there are plenty of situations where couples are financially and legally better off NOT being legally married. (Marriage penalty tax being one). So what's the big deal?

[chudrockz]

Ah well, our very own forum "Don Lapre" may well be an anti-gay bigot, but at least I got the news of the original Don Lapre. That's sad! A girlfriend and I in college always got quiet when his commercials popped on, because they were so amusing.

[Ranger29860]

What are the chances really of this thing not getting struck down? Hasn't the supreme court already sided with the same sex marriage right argument? So what is going to stop them from simply overturning this amendment? If anything this might have been planned or hoped for. With the recent uptick in the idea that congress is useless and the courts are radicle. What would be more beneficial then turning over a amendment that is supported like that? $50 donation dollars to campaign for liberty that by this time next year this could be overturned at some judicial level. There will be hell to pay for it and of course the president whoever it may be will simply say that the court is radical and man he wishes he could just bypass it.

[chudrockz]

What are the chances really of this thing not getting struck down? Hasn't the supreme court already sided with the same sex marriage right argument? So what is going to stop them from simply overturning this amendment? If anything this might have been planned or hoped for. With the recent uptick in the idea that congress is useless and the courts are radicle. What would be more beneficial then turning over a amendment that is supported like that? $50 donation dollars to campaign for liberty that by this time next year this could be overturned at some judicial level. There will be hell to pay for it and of course the president whoever it may be will simply say that the court is radical and man he wishes he could just bypass it.

It quite possibly WILL be thrown out by court challenges, yes.

The sad thing though is that there are enough dolts in NC that it passed in the first place.

I'm not sure if this will be on the ballot this November in Minnesota, but my wife and I can't wait to go vote against a gay marriage ban if it is.

[Domalais]

This isn't a statist program. State-based Gay marriage is a statist program, and this prohibits North Carolina from engaging in it.

Marriage is a contract. Prohibiting marriage between two consenting adults is the government telling people what types of agreements they can or cannot make in the market.


Gay marriage is an economic liberty issue.

[No Free Beer]

Although I believe it's a state's right to do this, I find it rather amusing.

It seems that there is big support from the evangelical-Christian community to ban gay-marriage wherever they can. But, what if we told them that the state could vote on whether to allow them to practice their religion (Christianity) legally. No praying. No churches. Nothing.

Shit would hit the fan.

[Don Lapre]

Don Lapre!!!!!

I knew the second I read the title you would magicly appear.

To anyone that is not aware he is 100% seriouse and has brought us such gems in the past such as:

And lets not forget this wonderfull logic:

So I will say you are still very consistent and I really don't think your a troll. IF you are a troll damn you are dedicated.

*edit*
The weird thing is I agree with him 100% on no government involvement in marriage. I don't thin anyone has ever disagreed with him there. He just likes to come in and really rail on homosexuality.

lol

Those takes of mine would only seem trollish to someone who's head has already turned to mush.

[Ranger29860]

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.

Because most homophobia comes from a person having their masculinity threatened. This do0esn't include someone who just doesn't like gays though. Its one thing to not like homosexuality its a whole nother thing to actively seek to ban or ostracize it.

You can clearly see this in the Army in the old days. If a man came out as gay he would not only be kicked out but during the time he was being preprocessed they would send him to another base. This was done because the Army did not want any sympathy coming from the individuals chain of command since they new the person more than just on the basis of he is gay. This led to many horror stories of gay men being put in a situation where they were surrounded by people who didn't know them and only knew they were gay. So you had people who had no emotional tie to an individual judging them based on one attribute that was viewed as unnatural and at the time was interwoven with the idea that homosexuality = pedophile. Go look at some of the storied from vets who got out and litterly had to run for their lives some nights because mobs of soldiers were coming to kill them. I know from experience that this hate they have now in days comes from their own insecurity. I know of a few openly gay soldiers in my old unit. It was never about them misbehaving or sexually harassing a soldier the problem were always on the side of the accusers thinking that everytime he went to the shower he was going to get raped but a gay.

If there is ANY doubt that the threatening of masculinity is the prime mover in homophobia just look at transgender people and how many times they are killed. Watch reactions of males that find out the person they are atracted to has a penis. Even though they look 100% like a women and the man is atracted to that the minute he is told this they tend to go off the handle and get violent. Accusing the peron of tricking them and then having to sure up there maculinity by getting violent.

As for women not being disgusting. I don't know where you live but in the south its just as bad as male homosexuality but it is only really present in women or a group environment.

[tod evans]

Lots of discussion about rights and and morality.

What about the legal consequences?

[Ranger29860]

Lots of discussion about rights and and morality.

What about the legal consequences?

Care to elaborate? What side of legal consequences are we talking about? Legal consequences of same sex marriage? or the legal consequence of banning it?

[tod evans]

Care to elaborate? What side of legal consequences are we talking about? Legal consequences of same sex marriage? or the legal consequence of banning it?

Geeze....both,

There are ramifications either way.

One that pops into my head right off is financial liability for healthcare insurers who would suddenly be legally bound to cover high risk couples.

[erowe1]

Marriage is a contract. Prohibiting marriage between two consenting adults is the government telling people what types of agreements they can or cannot make in the market.


Gay marriage is an economic liberty issue.

This isn't about prohibiting or banning anything except state involvement in gay marriage. Gay couples in North Carolina will still be able to have weddings, make promises to each other, live with each other, have sex, and do everything else that they think it means for them to be married, without anybody preventing them from those things or punishing them for them. All this amendment means is that they have to do all those things without the involvement of the state.

[Hyperion]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

Basically how I see it. The bans don't stop the behavior if individuals engage in it, but prevents the state from ever promoting it. As it should be. I'm sure many on here will disagree.

[Hyperion]

Better the state decide it's own laws than a group of federal judges.

The title should read NC Bans Gay Marriage Licenses unless marriage is an institution solely created and defined by the government. If the moral authority for your marriage depends upon government approval, then you have a weak case to start with.

Also a very good point.

[osan]

Another disgusting example of people believing they have the authority to control the lives of other peaceful human beings. When will people learn that when you attempt to control others, you will eventually be the one being controlled?

I'm truly baffled by the support for these bans. While flawed, I can understand arguments for many other statist programs. However, I cannot understand how anyone can be in favor of this.

Indeed, the ignorance, hypocrisy, stupidity, and really above all else the utter cowardice of it all. How eager they have been to deny the rights of others to live peaceably as they see fit. I hold less contempt for the child molester.

Human tyranny at the state level just reared its ugly head most unmistakably in NC. So much for the utterly idiotic notion of "states' rights". A vast wad of the people of NC have damned themselves. May they find the bed in which they must now lay suitably comfortable and inviting. One can only hope that in the near future that state's legislature will serve up a similar lesson in hypocrisy that will set those wretched people to wailing and gnashing their teeth.

The saddest thing is that the ***** may now leave the state in droves when precisely the opposite should occur. Every homosexual in the nation should move there, even if only for a short while and overwhelm that horrid population. Let the imbeciles who voted this oppression upon their fellows have even more of them as neighbors to their fathomless horror. Let them live more deeply in the fear that drove them to this idiocy, because it is exactly fear and their despicable cowardice that drove them to this.

A big step backward for human rights in the nation.

I do have a question though... Given the notion of "equal faith and credit", if a NC couple goes to San Francisco to get hitched, will NC not be obliged to recognize and respect that union? I see no way that such a constitutional amendment could possibly hold up to a court challenge. If NC were to ban Negroes, I my confidence is fair to middling that it would not stand up to judicial review.

I will also point out that this is a prime example of why states have no legitimate authority in the marriage business.

[Hyperion]

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

I would have no problem with this.

[erowe1]

I do have a question though... Given the notion of "equal faith and credit", if a NC couple goes to San Francisco to get hitched, will NC not be obliged to recognize and respect that union?

No they won't because of DOMA, which Ron Paul supports.

[mport1]

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

Agreed. The best thing would be for the government to completely abolish marriage licenses and any benefits associated with marriage. However, until that happens, people should be equal under the law.


Great Daily Show interview of Zach Wahls that discusses some of the harms caused by equal treatment not being afforded to gay couples - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-30-2012/zach-wahls

[Beorn]

Reading this thread and seeing the various responses from libertarians, who are typically far more logical than the average joe, leads me to believe that people's opinions on gay marriage more than any other issue are largely emotionally based and rarely thought out. Maybe that's because gay marriage was never really about rights, but more about acceptance.

[ronpaulfollower999]

What about individual rights?

[JK/SEA]

In other news....20,000 homes have been put up for sale this week in North Carolina.

[LibertyEagle]

I happen to believe that homosexuality is immoral. But, unless they infringe on me, it's none of my business how someone else chooses to live their life.

Right now, I am quite busy trying to take the plank out of my own eye...

[Kelly.]

in north carolina, marriage is now between 2 people in love, their god and their government.

equal rights for most!

[Brent H]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

[Ranger29860]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

I don't know if your actually serious? I really don't think "marriage" is been about any sexual act.

*edit*
Either way, in CA I could maybe understand your argument since there would be a civil union equivlent legally. But in NC they banned even that by the looks of it.

I have always wondered why we have this tendancy in this country to think seperate but equal is ok when it comes to state or federal law. I could definitly see the private property right as a basis to discriminate how you want in your own buisness or house. But why is this ok at a state or federal level?

[Kelly.]

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

why should govt have to OK any marriage??

it was my understanding that marriage was between to loving adults and their god. as soon as you are forced to get the govt to OK (marriage license), you are now married to your spouse AND the govt.

what this boils down to it equal rights, as it relates to taxes, end of life decisions, etc.
so strange that so called libertarians here are all for denying rights to certain groups.

[JK/SEA]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

you must be a latent homosexual, and have a fear you might love just men. why else do people like you fear what others do in private?... Men engage in anal sex with women.

No..i'm not gay. Been married to my female wife for over 30 years.

Maybe its time to start legislating laws against what you do.

[Ranger29860]

you must be a latent homosexual, and have a fear you might love just men. why else do people like you fear what others do in private?... Men engage in anal sex with women.

No..i'm not gay. Been married to my female wife for over 30 years.

Maybe its time to start legislating laws against what you do.

The problem is for many I have seen is the idea that sex is the only reason gays want to get married. Since people view it as a deviant lifestyle they demand the focus of argument to be on the most "odd" part of the situation for them refusing to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

[matt0611]

I don't have any problem with this under our Constitutional / Federal system. A state has a power to regulate and define such things.

The people of NC have spoken. They changed their Constitution to reflect their will. Perfectly legitimate and I don't see how this affects anyone's "rights".

[Ranger29860]

I don't have any problem with this under our Constitutional / Federal system. A state has a right to regulate and define such things.

But if the government is going to get involved at any level (which it shouldnt for marriage) would this be something that should be covered under the equal protection of the law?

[tod evans]

But if the government is going to get involved at any level (which it shouldnt for marriage) would this be something that should be covered under the equal protection of the law?

"Equality" is a very subjective thing...

[matt0611]

But if the government is going to get involved at any level (which it shouldnt for marriage) would this be something that should be covered under the equal protection of the law?

No, not in my opinion. Its not something that's covered under that.

[Ranger29860]

"Equality" is a very subjective thing...

I agree hence why I don't want them in marriage to begin with. We should be moving to ban state involvment in marriage to begin with. That being said all this "fight" is doing is solidifying governments role in marriage. Now because we have the "sanctity of marriage" we must protect it, and of course the way the majority does this is to use the government to get there way. This is why I do not understand some peoples views that claim to be libertarian but then turn around and say we must protect marriage. It defeats the entire purpose. If anything people should be clamoring for same sex marriage so that people relize how stupid it is to have government involved to begin with.

[Dianne]

Although I believe it's a state's right to do this, I find it rather amusing.

It seems that there is big support from the evangelical-Christian community to ban gay-marriage wherever they can. But, what if we told them that the state could vote on whether to allow them to practice their religion (Christianity) legally. No praying. No churches. Nothing.

Shit would hit the fan.

That was my first thought when I heard about this amendment. It sets the precedent for the government to control every aspect of your personal life, if they wish. And at some point, we will have a dictator (perhaps the one we have now), who will mandate wealth, religion, education, slavery; and these dolts who can't keep their noses out of other people's private business, have themselves to thank when we all lose our freedom of choice.

[Kelly.]

I don't have any problem with this under our Constitutional / Federal system. A state has a power to regulate and define such things.

The people of NC have spoken. They changed their Constitution to reflect their will. Perfectly legitimate and I don't see how this affects anyone's "rights".

would be OK to amend the state constitution to ban only a certain race from getting married?

if not, who is that different?
if yes, we understand liberty different.

[Ranger29860]

would be OK to amend the state constitution to ban only a certain race from getting married?

if not, who is that different?
if yes, we understand liberty different.

O Gawd get your firesuit ready!

[Icymudpuppy]

Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

Obviously if marriage is a thing of God as written in Matthew, why is it being rendered unto the state against Jesus' teaching in Mark?

[Dianne]

In other news....20,000 homes have been put up for sale this week in North Carolina.

Obama, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Wells Fargo; just to name a few are co conspirators in the largest land grab in this country's history with the extorted money going directly to foreign entities. Even the corrupt U.S. Attorney General says the Banks are corrupt; yet they haven't stopped them from their illegal fraudclosures and they continue to look the other way as homes are stolen.

Where is the outrage from these "busy bodies", on that issue?

[Hyperion]

We should be moving to ban state involvement in marriage to begin with.

I would get behind this 100% as it's the best way to handle this in a manner that's fair to everyone involved. Unfortunately, I just don't see any groundswell movement for this to occur but maybe we should start it.

As for the equality issue, should incest and polygamy be legally recognized as well? I don't. Marriage has historically been clearly between a man and woman for obvious reasons. Having said that I don't believe in legal punishment for those who engage in such behavior and this bill doesn't advocate that. It's simply the state won't recognize it.

The states do have a right to make their own laws. I disagree strongly with the laws in Vermont, Mass.,NY etc.. but they have a right to make them under the 10th Amendment just as North Carolina and other states have done here.

[matt0611]

would be OK to amend the state constitution to ban only a certain race from getting married?

if not, who is that different?
if yes, we understand liberty different.

Probably not no because its discriminating against a certain class of humans. The marriage institution itself is defined as being between a man and a woman. As long as you don't say what class of people can participate in it then I don't see a problem with it, no.

[Kelly.]

lol, it sounds like you are saying women and men have different rights, which i dont agree with.

liberty: easy to talk about, hard to live.

good luck to you.

[Dianne]

Raleigh Swat Team evicts homeowner


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRHRpJ9mtWk&feature=related

[Lishy]

Why should a state decide who can marry who anyways? Kinda silly... I mean, I don't care what their sex life is like, as long as they don't do it in front of me. But why CAN'T gays marry!?

[Kelly.]

Why should a state decide who can marry who anyways? Kinda silly... I mean, I don't care what their sex life is like, as long as they don't do it in front of me. But why CAN'T gays marry!?

because in NC, you not only marry your spouse, you also marry government.

liberty can also move in reverse, at the will of the people of course.

[chudrockz]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

But women sticking "whatever it is they may stick" up each others' sex organs is just fine, right?

I guess the state of Minnesota might have to nullify my marriage to my wife. She (gasp) put her MOUTH on my sex organ recently! The horror. It didn't result in procreation!

I guess in the end I just have no comprehension whatsoever why some people, even some purporting to love liberty, get so damned hung up to the point of distration with what kind of sex other people are having. It's silly.

[Pericles]

Reading this thread and seeing the various responses from libertarians, who are typically far more logical than the average joe, leads me to believe that people's opinions on gay marriage more than any other issue are largely emotionally based and rarely thought out. Maybe that's because gay marriage was never really about rights, but more about acceptance.

Agree There are wide ranging implications of defining marriage as a right, rather than as as means of maintaining legal bonds between parents and offspring and the attendant property rights.

Marriage as a fundamental rught, implies it can't be limited to two people, incest statutes can no longer apply as they are violations of fundamental rights, and some think through on the legal ramifications (especially polygimy) seems to be lacking.

[osan]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

It definitely has nothing to do with this. I doubt Joe Average from NC possesses the intellectual sophistication to dope this idea out for himself.


Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

This may be partly true, though I do not agree with the mush bit. You're giving far too much credit to the indolent numbskulls that infest that particular tract of US real estate. They apparently are incapable of separating their personal preferences from the instruments of general governance. Because THEY don't like it, ban it for all. Those people are idiots of the lowest order. They are lovers of the pretty slavery they choose to call "freedom". They reside in the prisons they build around themselves. Let them rot there for all I could give a damn. My contempt for those people knows no limit, just as their self-imposed stupidity knows none.

[Lishy]

because in NC, you not only marry your spouse, you also marry government.

liberty can also move in reverse, at the will of the people of course.

Because America was founded upon Christian values, amrite?

[muzzled dogg]

Down south fail

[osan]

Don't live in North Carolina.

What in hell kind of a fucking bullshit response is this? Seriously... I see so much of this nonsense here by people who claim to be advocates of liberty. What a load of crap.

If I were living in NC for many decades, had a huge investment in friends, family, real estate, business, politics, and so forth, I see NO REASON WHATSOEVER that I should be forced into making the decision to move away or suffer some tyrant's whim and caprice, regardless whether I am straight, as gay as the lilies, or for any other reason you may care to name.

The answer is NEVER to move away. It is to DO AWAY with tyranny in every form and of every degree no matter how seemingly innocuous. Until that happens, all talk of being free is an exercise in bullshit.

Jesus sprinting across the face of the deep, people... get your heads our of your intellectual anuses. Stop fucking with people and stop advocating that those who are being treated shabbily pick up and move away. That has got to be right up there with the recommendation that the woman just lie back and enjoy being raped, for utter stupidity.

[Dissent]

At least it was the citizens of the state doing the voting. I agree there. But I think the bigger picture is the fact that government needs to get the hell out of marriage period. Then there would be no big to do about ANYONE'S marriage. Straight or Gay. I personally don't care for gay folks but to each their own. I just don't see why government has the right to tell us who we can and can not marry. Marriage should be a contract between 2 people with their church or just between themselves.

[osan]

Because most homophobia comes from a person having their masculinity threatened. This do0esn't include someone who just doesn't like gays though. Its one thing to not like homosexuality its a whole nother thing to actively seek to ban or ostracize it.

The more a guy rails against gay, the more I suspect he is latent and hating life.

[Lishy]

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!?

http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/joss-stone-hot-lesbian-kiss.jpg

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

[V3n]

I understand it's "States Rights" or "majority ruled" but isn't this one of those occasions where having a Republic form of government is better than the pure Democracy..? I may not be using those words right, but what I mean is this..

If they have a vote, and 60% of the people agree to a bill that says "You have the duty to punch people who have red hair squarely in the face every time you see one." Ok, the bill passes, and you might say, "If you have red hair, just don't live in North Carolina." but that doesn't take away the fact that the folks with red hair's Rights are being violated!

This may have passed popular vote, but I pray the folks with the power to strike this down, do so quickly!

[dillo]

Country is 15 trillion in debt

come out in droves to vote against gay marriage

[Cowlesy]

This thread is going to go nowhere.

Some people are okay with it, some people aren't. In the political system you have, voters get to make the choice. So that's how they choose. If you don't like it, leave, or convince the voters to change their minds. Or change the political system so that you can have your way.

You'll never make every single human being okay with total liberty. Never has happened, never will.

[Beorn]

I understand it's "States Rights" or "majority ruled" but isn't this one of those occasions where having a Republic form of government is better than the pure Democracy..? I may not be using those words right, but what I mean is this..

If they have a vote, and 60% of the people agree to a bill that says "You have the duty to punch people who have red hair squarely in the face every time you see one." Ok, the bill passes, and you might say, "If you have red hair, just don't live in North Carolina." but that doesn't take away the fact that the folks with red hair's Rights are being violated!

This may have passed popular vote, but I pray the folks with the power to strike this down, do so quickly!

You want a judge to strike down an ammendment to a constitution?

[dannno]

That Don Lapre died last October.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lapre


Whoa, didn't just die, committed suicide!


His work involved product packages such as "The Greatest Vitamin in the World" and "Making Money Secrets".

Lapre was criticized as selling questionable business plans that often did not work for his clients. In June 2011, Lapre was charged with 41 counts of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and promotional money laundering related to his Internet businesses. He was arrested on June 24, 2011, for failing to appear in court to face these charges.[2] On October 2, 2011, Lapre died of an apparent suicide while awaiting trial in federal custody.

[V3n]

Whoa, didn't just die, committed suicide!

This forum covers everything: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320097-Don-Lapre-Game-over-commits-suicide&highlight=don+lapre - I knew I read it here first!

@Beorn - YES! Especially to this State Constitution, but there's some Federal ones that ought to be repealed as well! Unless you really asking about the process, in which case I'm not sure what the process is to kill this, if it's a judge or not, but whatever it takes, I hope it dies swiftly.

[LibertyEagle]

Raleigh Swat Team evicts homeowner


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRHRpJ9mtWk&feature=related


Someone was evicted for not paying their mortgage? I also didn't see a SWAT team.

[Beorn]

Agree There are wide ranging implications of defining marriage as a right, rather than as as means of maintaining legal bonds between parents and offspring and the attendant property rights.

Marriage as a fundamental rught, implies it can't be limited to two people, incest statutes can no longer apply as they are violations of fundamental rights, and some think through on the legal ramifications (especially polygimy) seems to be lacking.

Disagree. Marriage is more than a fundamental right; it is an institution. Like all institutions it should have limits placed on it. Those limits should be in line with the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage as well as the needs of the local community.

[BenIsForRon]

And doesn't this amendment violate the 14 Amendment (equal protection under the laws)?

Anywho, I'm very happy to see that most people on this forum see this as a step backward for human rights in this country. I, as a North Carolinian, take solace in the fact that we will either be able to overturn this in the courts, or overturn in 20 years when all the old people who voted for this are dead.

[matt0611]

And doesn't this amendment violate the 14 Amendment (equal protection under the laws)?

Anywho, I'm very happy to see that most people on this forum see this as a step backward for human rights in this country. I, as a North Carolinian, take solace in the fact that we will either be able to overturn this in the courts, or overturn in 20 years when all the old people who voted for this are dead.

I wouldn't say so, no. Many states do not have gay marriage. Do they go against the 14th amendment too?

People take the 14th amendment way too out of context and stretch it way too far.

[Beorn]

This forum covers everything: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320097-Don-Lapre-Game-over-commits-suicide&highlight=don+lapre - I knew I read it here first!

@Beorn - YES! Especially to this State Constitution, but there's some Federal ones that ought to be repealed as well! Unless you really asking about the process, in which case I'm not sure what the process is to kill this, if it's a judge or not, but whatever it takes, I hope it dies swiftly.

Yes, I was referring to the process. Process matters. I won't blame you if you don't like the law, but I'm not a fan of getting rid of laws by any means necessary without respect for the proper roles of the government branches.

[BenIsForRon]

I wouldn't say so, no. Many states do not have gay marriage. Do they go against the 14th amendment too?

People take the 14th amendment way too out of context and stretch it way too far.

Two adults are two adults no matter which way you slice it. If you grant special privileges to only two sets of adults that are opposite genders, then that's discrimination, and the law isn't being applied equally.

As to your question, I would say yes.

[Kelly.]

Disagree. Marriage is more than a fundamental right; it is an institution. Like all institutions it should have limits placed on it. Those limits should be in line with the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage as well as the needs of the local community.

once you invite government into your institution, YOU no longer get to decide the limits, government gets to.

[matt0611]

Two adults are two adults no matter which way you slice it. If you grant special privileges to only two sets of adults that are opposite genders, then that's discrimination, and the law isn't being applied equally.

As to your question, I would say yes.

Its not special privilege, its open to any two people of the opposite gender.

The fact that this is unappealing or not desirable for some is irrelevant.

[Beorn]

Two adults are two adults no matter which way you slice it. If you grant special privileges to only two sets of adults that are opposite genders, then that's discrimination, and the law isn't being applied equally.

As to your question, I would say yes.

I would think people around here would care about original intent.

[V3n]

Yes, I was referring to the process. Process matters. I won't blame you if you don't like the law, but I'm not a fan of getting rid of laws by any means necessary without respect for the proper roles of the government branches.

I agree the proper process should be followed, I'm just ignorant as to what that process is for this piece of legislation in NC.
(so I said "judge" without looking anything up)

[Beorn]

once you invite government into your institution, YOU no longer get to decide the limits, government gets to.

Depending on the level of government I'm ok with that.

[Kelly.]

wonder how people would feel if marriage was defined as being between 2 christians only.

what this be ok?

[Beorn]

I agree the proper process should be followed, I'm just ignorant as to what that process is for this piece of legislation in NC.
(so I said "judge" without looking anything up)

Please don't bother to spout off your opinion when you don't even know the most basic facts of the law in question.

[BenIsForRon]

Its not special privilege, its open to any two people of the opposite gender.

The fact that this is unappealing or not desirable for some is irrelevant.

As opposed to any two people. Gender is considered in the application of the law. I call that discrimination.

[Hyperion]

As opposed to any two people. Gender is considered in the application of the law. I call that discrimination.

Your thoughts on incest and polygamy being legalized?

[matt0611]

As opposed to any two people. Gender is considered in the application of the law. I call that discrimination.

Both genders can participate. In fact, BOTH are required. There's no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman.

The people of the state of North Carolina have spoken and changed their Constitution to set this in stone so to speak. This is all legal under our system of government.

[Beorn]

wonder how people would feel if marriage was defined as being between 2 christians only.

what this be ok?

I would be against my state doing that. I wouldn't support a higher level ban to stop other states from doing that.

[V3n]

Please don't bother to spout off your opinion when you don't even know the most basic facts of the law in question.

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.

[BenIsForRon]

Your thoughts on incest and polygamy being legalized?

As long as minors are not involved, it's none of my business.


Both genders can participate. In fact, BOTH are required. There's no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman.

The people of the state of North Carolina have spoken and changed their Constitution to set this in stone so to speak. This is all legal under our system of government.

When government defines it in that way it is inherently discriminatory. States don't have the right to ban free speech, they should not have the right to violate the 14th Amendment either.

[matt0611]

wonder how people would feel if marriage was defined as being between 2 christians only.

what this be ok?

I'd be fine with it as long as the state's Constitution is compatible with the law or changed. I would vote against it though.

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

LOL you'll never understand. Male sex is "nasty" to many people because it goes against nature's intended purposes. You can make all these arguments about "natural deviants" but it's pretty plain to see what the purpose of nature is, and that two males weren't created for that purpose.

[matt0611]

As long as minors are not involved, it's none of my business.



When government defines it in that way it is inherently discriminatory. States don't have the right to ban free speech, they should not have the right to violate the 14th Amendment either.

I disagree. Its not a violation of the 14th amendment.

[PaulConventionWV]

Better the state decide it's own laws than a group of federal judges.

The title should read NC Bans Gay Marriage Licenses unless marriage is an institution solely created and defined by the government. If the moral authority for your marriage depends upon government approval, then you have a weak case to start with.

Exactly. Considering that it's the state that did this, and not the fed, and the fact that it's banning licenses instead of formal partnerships, I'm not sweating this one.

[Dianne]

Well my entire family voted against this amendment yesterday. I don't have a dog in the fight personally, however, if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. In my view, neither the state nor federal government has the power to impose restrictions on marriage...... period.

I have no idea how the "butinski's" feel that two women or two men married and living around the corner hurt them. What is the difference with two men or two women living around the corner, not married? Is that the next plan, to prohibit same sex couples from living together? There is no limit to what power can be usurped once a precedent is set.

[PaulConventionWV]

Agreed. The best thing would be for the government to completely abolish marriage licenses and any benefits associated with marriage. However, until that happens, people should be equal under the law.


Great Daily Show interview of Zach Wahls that discusses some of the harms caused by equal treatment not being afforded to gay couples - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-30-2012/zach-wahls

Well that makes a lot of sense.

"I hate government involvement in marriage, but until we can abolish government involvement in marriage, let's support more of it!"

Why can't you just advocate the abolition of heterosexual marriage licenses instead of arguing for homosexual ones?

[osan]

Dup. WTF?

[PaulConventionWV]

you must be a latent homosexual, and have a fear you might love just men. why else do people like you fear what others do in private?... Men engage in anal sex with women.

No..i'm not gay. Been married to my female wife for over 30 years.

Maybe its time to start legislating laws against what you do.

Nobody's making laws against what homosexuals do. This law is banning the government from endorsing what you do. Get it right.

[PaulConventionWV]

Although I believe it's a state's right to do this, I find it rather amusing.

It seems that there is big support from the evangelical-Christian community to ban gay-marriage wherever they can. But, what if we told them that the state could vote on whether to allow them to practice their religion (Christianity) legally. No praying. No churches. Nothing.

Shit would hit the fan.

I guess I was wrong when I thought a libertarian of all people would understand why banning governmental approval and support of your lifestyle is not the same as banning your lifestyle? Gays can still live together. They still have all the freedoms they have before. They just don't have the government backing them up. Boohoo, cry me a river. If it were me, I wouldn't want them in my life anyway. In fact, I can see why some heterosexual couples would just forego the government-issued license of marriage and just get married in a church and call it done.

[James Madison]

Oh, dear. The statist Christians in NC have just elevated the government to the level of God, and they don't even realize it.

Under common law a license is meant to give one permission to engage in behavior that would otherwise be unlawful. So, government has been entrusted with the responsibility to authorize lawful marriage. I thought marriage was a sacrament between two people and their Creator. If so, why would God need government to do His job for Him? Oh, because the state has replaced God as the provider of all things! In reality, only God can santify a marriage; those with government permission slips (aka marriage licenses) should reasses the role of the state in a Divine Covenant.

And let's not forget the reason government got involved in marriage: discrimination. That's right. Marriage licenses were first issued in the US after the Civil War as a way to limit interracial marriage. So in a dramatic twist of irony the people who think government should endorse gay marriage out of respect for civil rights are, at the same time, clamoring for one of the most discrimanitory laws ever practiced in this country. Seems to me the only solution is to simply get government out of marriage completely. Let the free market handle any disagreements that arise.

[PaulConventionWV]

And doesn't this amendment violate the 14 Amendment (equal protection under the laws)?

Anywho, I'm very happy to see that most people on this forum see this as a step backward for human rights in this country. I, as a North Carolinian, take solace in the fact that we will either be able to overturn this in the courts, or overturn in 20 years when all the old people who voted for this are dead.

Nobody's rights are being violated, unless you consider it a "right" to receive government endorsement of your lifestyle.

[Beorn]

I guess I was wrong when I thought a libertarian of all people would understand why banning governmental approval and support of your lifestyle is not the same as banning your lifestyle? Gays can still live together. They still have all the freedoms they have before. They just don't have the government backing them up. Boohoo, cry me a river. If it were me, I wouldn't want them in my life anyway. In fact, I can see why some heterosexual couples would just forego the government-issued license of marriage and just get married in a church and call it done.

Arghhh. We have father's day and mother's day, but what about cousins??? Why does the government hate and control cousins by not giving them an official holiday. Totally not equal protection.


Actually for all I know there is a cousin's day.

[PaulConventionWV]

I would be against my state doing that. I wouldn't support a higher level ban to stop other states from doing that.

Finally, a reasonable dissenter.

[osan]

Nobody's making laws against what homosexuals do. This law is banning the government from endorsing what you do. Get it right.

This is patently incorrect, if I have read correctly. Am I mistaken that the initiative was a BAN on gay marriage? If so, then that is NOT a ban on government endorsement - at least not in anything but the most trivial and disingenuous fashion. If the government must not endorse ***** marriage, then it must not endorse any other including between man and horse or the neighbor's pet gopher. The dividing line here cannot be justified by any rational and legitimate means and issues solely from the priggish squeamishness of some. Claiming "Jesus says so" or "it is the will of Allah" doesn't cut the objective mustard in the least measure. To one and all I say believe what you will, but keep your mitts to yourselves. Don't like *****? Don't be *****; but keep your hands off those who are, for they trespass not upon you by that virtue alone.

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

What rights? What rights are being "taken away?"

[matt0611]

What rights? What rights are being "taken away?"

Exactly. The thread title of this doesn't even make sense. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

This amendment affirms and defines marriage in the only logical, rational, historical, moral, ethical, biological, (and Christian) way as the union of one man and one woman.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well my entire family voted against this amendment yesterday. I don't have a dog in the fight personally, however, if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. In my view, neither the state nor federal government has the power to impose restrictions on marriage...... period.

I have no idea how the "butinski's" feel that two women or two men married and living around the corner hurt them. What is the difference with two men or two women living around the corner, not married? Is that the next plan, to prohibit same sex couples from living together? There is no limit to what power can be usurped once a precedent is set.

You made the point that if you give the government an inch they will take a mile, and applied it in the wrong direction. If you give the government regulatory powers over marriage AT ALL, they will then use it to define marriage however they want. Now, instead of just taking away the government's ability to regulate ANY marriage, you want them to regulate all kinds of marriage the same way? This reasoning is completely backward. We don't want more government involvement in marriage, we want LESS.

This has nothing to do with limiting how gays want to live their lives. That's not the issue here. This is a ban on government involvement in gay marriage, not a ban on "gay marriage", per se.

[PaulConventionWV]

The more a guy rails against gay, the more I suspect he is latent and hating life.

This is just the go-to distraction from the issues that every gay marriage advocate uses. You don't like homosexuality? You must be gay.

I'm not, thank you, now let's start talking about something tangible instead of distracting from the real issue.

[Beorn]

What rights? What rights are being "taken away?"


Exactly. The thread title of this doesn't even make sense. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

This amendment affirms and defines marriage in the only logical, rational, historical, moral, ethical, biological way as the union of one man and one woman.

I believe the strategic purpose was to avoid the prop 8 problem in California where the 9th circuit ruled that rights granted to a class of people can't be taken away once given. In NC they wanted to make sure those rights were never given in the first place.

[Pericles]

Disagree. Marriage is more than a fundamental right; it is an institution. Like all institutions it should have limits placed on it. Those limits should be in line with the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage as well as the needs of the local community.

I don't disagree with you - my comments were addressed to others who wish government intervention to recognize the institution as they think it should be. I can defend traditional marriage on these grounds - the minimum required to establish legal parentage and its resultant responsibilities to provide for those children, and a means of automatically transferring property from a decedent to subsequent generations.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is patently incorrect, if I have read correctly. Am I mistaken that the initiative was a BAN on gay marriage? If so, then that is NOT a ban on government endorsement - at least not in anything but the most trivial and disingenuous fashion. If the government must not endorse ***** marriage, then it must not endorse any other including between man and horse or the neighbor's pet gopher. The dividing line here cannot be justified by any rational and legitimate means and issues solely from the priggish squeamishness of some. Claiming "Jesus says so" or "it is the will of Allah" doesn't cut the objective mustard in the least measure. To one and all I say believe what you will, but keep your mitts to yourselves. Don't like *****? Don't be *****; but keep your hands off those who are, for they trespass not upon you by that virtue alone.

No, they CALL it a ban on gay marriage, but it is actually a ban on gays getting marriage LICENSES. That's because we are so far gone in this country that, the only way we see two people as being married is if they have a government-issued license. It doesn't matter what marriage actually is, because now it is defined as being joined as one under the government, not under God.

Also, how can anyone win with you? First, you tell me that, if I don't like homosexuality, then I must BE homosexual. Then you are telling me that if I don't like homosexuality, that I must NOT be homosexual.

[V3n]

What rights? What rights are being "taken away?"

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....

[PaulConventionWV]

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....

Those are not rights. Those are government privileges.

[tod evans]

Way to much governmental involvement!

It's time to repeal laws not write new ones.




On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....

[Pericles]

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....


Several items on that list easily handled with a power of attorney.

[V3n]

Those are not rights. Those are government privileges.

Again, I am not a lawyer and don't always use the right words. Whatever. Those privileges should be extended to same-sex couples as well.

[V3n]

Several items on that list easily handled with a power of attorney.

Agreed, but not all. If all could be managed that way, then we could achieve the ultimate goal of ending 'State-Licensed Marriage' altogether.

[Sam I am]

What's worse than the government applying certain "privileges"(laws) to everybody?

Government applying those "privileges"(laws) only to a select group of individuals.

[Domalais]

This isn't about prohibiting or banning anything except state involvement in gay marriage. Gay couples in North Carolina will still be able to have weddings, make promises to each other, live with each other, have sex, and do everything else that they think it means for them to be married, without anybody preventing them from those things or punishing them for them. All this amendment means is that they have to do all those things without the involvement of the state.

Pure nonsense.


A man wishes to sign a contract with another man stating that the two will share ownership of property, responsibility for debts, parental rights over children, medical responsibility in the case of incapacitation, etc, etc, etc.


Should the state interfere with the ability of two people to sign a legal contract of their mutual, consensual choice?

[erowe1]

Pure nonsense.


A man wishes to sign a contract with another man stating that the two will share ownership of property, responsibility for debts, parental rights over children, medical responsibility in the case of incapacitation, etc, etc, etc.


Should the state interfere with the ability of two people to sign a legal contract of their mutual, consensual choice?

There's no issue here of the state interfering with anything like that. This is about whether or not the state itself should become a party in such a contract.

It's a misnomer to call these laws gay marriage bans. They don't limit anyone's freedom to do anything they want in any way. They just limit the power of the state to get involved.

[PaulConventionWV]

Again, I am not a lawyer and don't always use the right words. Whatever. Those privileges should be extended to same-sex couples as well.

This is not just semantics. The distinction between rights and privileges is important. Rights are your God-given freedoms as a living individual. Privileges that come solely from the government should not exist. The only way this would be a violation of someone's rights is if the government told you NOT to be homosexual. This simply banning the government from extending government licenses and all the government regulation that comes with it, to homosexuals. Thus, it is not a ban on a gay person's lifestyle. Gays can still do whatever they want. They just can't get a government-issued license.

If you care about rights, then tell the government to STOP granting privileges to ANY marriages, not to START granting them to other groups. That's the only way you're going to solve this problem.

[Sam I am]

There's no issue here of the state interfering with anything like that. This is about whether or not the state itself should become a party in such a contract.

It's a misnomer to call these laws gay marriage bans. They don't limit anyone's freedom to do anything they want in any way. They just limit the power of the state to get involved.

The important part is that the state treats hetero-sectual marriages and gay marriage differently, which is even worse than if they were involved the same way in both types of marriage.

[PaulConventionWV]

What's worse than the government applying certain "privileges"(laws) to everybody?

Government applying those "privileges"(laws) only to a select group of individuals.

The privileges apply to everyone. Everyone is allowed to have a heterosexual marriage. The fact that some people don't want one is irrelevant.

[erowe1]

The important part is that the state treats hetero-sectual marriages and gay marriage differently, which is even worse than if they were involved the same way in both types of marriage.

I don't see how it's worse. I think it's bad that the state licenses heterosexual marriages, and it would be worse if the state expanded it's involvement by licensing homosexual ones as well.

[PaulConventionWV]

Pure nonsense.


A man wishes to sign a contract with another man stating that the two will share ownership of property, responsibility for debts, parental rights over children, medical responsibility in the case of incapacitation, etc, etc, etc.


Should the state interfere with the ability of two people to sign a legal contract of their mutual, consensual choice?

They can still make a contract. What you are effectively saying is that all such contracts must come from the state in order to be valid.

[PaulConventionWV]

The important part is that the state treats hetero-sectual marriages and gay marriage differently, which is even worse than if they were involved the same way in both types of marriage.

That may or may not be, but making the state grant more privileges is moving in the wrong direction.

I, personally, always err on the side of less government involvement, not more. How someone can justify arguing for more when they could be arguing for less by stating that the government should grant "equal privileges" is beyond me.

[Domalais]

They can still make a contract. What you are effectively saying is that all such contracts must come from the state in order to be valid.

The state already ensures that all such contracts come from them. Where, precisely, do you get your marriage license? Protip: The state.



The state is regulating contractual agreements between people based on nonsense, and "libertarians" are supporting it. Disgusting.

[erowe1]

The state is regulating contractual agreements between people based on nonsense, and "libertarians" are supporting it. Disgusting.

Not contractual agreements between people, but contractual agreements between people and itself.

Keeping the state out of gay marriage doesn't limit the power of people, it limits the power of the state. Libertarians should support that. For those who don't, if they're honest with themselves, their reasons for their position have nothing at all to do with liberty.

[Domalais]

Not contractual agreements between people, but contractual agreements between people and itself.

No.


You need a marriage license from the state. A private contract will not be recognized by third parties. Third parties are required by the state to recognize the state's marriage licenses.

Write a contract giving someone else spousal benefits from your health insurance. Take that shit into an emergency room and see how you do.

[erowe1]

Third parties are required by the state to recognize the state's marriage licenses.


And you support that?

If a hospital doesn't want to recognize someone's marriage, they shouldn't have to.

[Kelly.]

should gay couples be granted everything "government married" hetero couples get, so long as we dont call it "marriage"?

specifically in reference to V3's list.

[Sam I am]

should gay couples be granted everything "government married" hetero couples get, so long as we dont call it "marriage"?

specifically in reference to V3's list.

Whatever it is that gay couples and hetero couples get, they should be equivalent to each-other

[Domalais]

And you support that?

No. But arguing that the state should not regulate marriage contracts at all while simultaneously saying that the state should restrict marriages to only opposite-sex couples is utterly retarded.


That's like saying that you oppose the death penalty, but until they ban it you support executing drug users.

[erowe1]

should gay couples be granted everything "government married" hetero couples get, so long as we dont call it "marriage"?

specifically in reference to V3's list.

I don't know about that list, but no, they should not. For example, Social Security spousal benefits.

[Kelly.]

Whatever it is that gay couples and hetero couples get, they should be equivalent to each-other

not equivalent, equal

[Domalais]

I don't know about that list, but no, they should not. For example, Social Security spousal benefits.

Why? What's the difference?

[Kelly.]

I don't know about that list, but no, they should not. For example, Social Security spousal benefits.

why do you want to treat individuals different based on their sexual preference?

[erowe1]

No. But arguing that the state should not regulate marriage contracts at all while simultaneously saying that the state should restrict marriages to only opposite-sex couples is utterly retarded.


That's like saying that you oppose the death penalty, but until they ban it you support executing drug users.

I'm confused by your position. You don't support the state forcing hospitals to recognize gay marriages. But you oppose these so-called gay marriage bans that don't really ban anything on the grounds that they would allow hospitals not to recognize gay marriages?

[erowe1]

why do you want to treat individuals different based on their sexual preference?

I don't. Nothing in any of these laws says anything about people's sexual preferences.

[erowe1]

Why? What's the difference?

Because. The future liability taxpayers have for Social Security is too big as it is. To make it even bigger would make it worse, not better.

If you're going to say that marriage should be redefined for that, then you might as well say that we should lower the retirement age for Social Security on the grounds that it's not fair for younger people that they aren't getting it.

If you want to give your own money to somebody after their same-sex spouse died, go ahead, but you have no right to force other taxpayers to. I don't see how people are trying to call that "libertarian."

[Domalais]

I'm confused by your position. You don't support the state forcing hospitals to recognize gay marriages. But you oppose these so-called gay marriage bans that don't really ban anything on the grounds that they would allow hospitals not to recognize gay marriages?

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.

[Domalais]

Because. The future liability taxpayers have for Social Security is too big as it is. To make it even bigger would make it worse, not better.

If you're going to say that marriage should be redefined for that, then you might as well say that we should lower the retirement age for Social Security on the grounds that it's not fair for younger people that they aren't getting it.


How does the gender of the person involved make the liability bigger? It's the same size either way.

[erowe1]

How does the gender of the person involved make the liability bigger? It's the same size either way.

You're saying the number of marriages is the same if you count both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples as it would be if you only counted opposite-sex couples?

[James Madison]

should gay couples be granted everything "government married" hetero couples get, so long as we dont call it "marriage"?

specifically in reference to V3's list.

Government shouldn't be granting anything.

[erowe1]

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.

So, if the state is going to limit my freedom by forcing me as a third party to recognize it's opposite-sex marriage contracts, it should limit my freedom even more by forcing me to recognize same-sex ones as well?

[Domalais]

You're saying the number of marriages is the same if you count both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples as it would be if you only counted opposite-sex couples?

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?

[Domalais]

So, if the state is going to limit my freedom by forcing me as a third party to recognize it's opposite-sex marriage contracts, it should limit my freedom even more by forcing me to recognize same-sex ones as well?

I'm saying that the state should force you to be gay married, and ensure that your marriage is consummated.

[jmdrake]

For the record, the title is wrong. No state has "banned" gay marriage. Two men or two women can go to a Universalist Unitarian church in any of the 50 states and get married. Their marriage just won't have the official "seal of approval" by the state. It's laughable that some in this movement who are soooooooo against government shed crocodile tears because one group is being left out of the "benefits" of government control sanction. Meanwhile if a man wants to marry two or more women, something that Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and other "patriarchs" in the Bible did, that man and those two women face arrest. Even if the ceremony is private and not a wedding ceremony, they still face arrest. Oh you can have 5 "babies' mamas", but have a private ceremony where you promise before God and man to love and cherish two or more of them, and now you deserve to be arrested and to have your children taken away. If I point out to some gay marriage proponents the question "What about polygamy" it's met with the scornful reply "How dare you compare polygamy to gay marriage!" It's true their is no comparison. One is sanctioned in the Bible (yes it always caused problems and I don't want more than one wife myself) and is seen throughout nature (lions horses etc). The other was attacked in both the Old and New Testament and people have to stretch to find any natural equivalent. Does America have to be ruled by the Bible? Of course not. But enough with the hypocrisy. Polygamy didn't make the "sexual revolution" cut like abortion and homosexuality because it goes in the opposite direction of the radical feminists. They have a problem with one woman being married to a man, let alone two. When polygamists get their rights, then talk to me about gays, who already have the right to marry being denied the privileges of marriage. Oh, and a Ron Paul presidency would get rid of - or redefine most of those "privileges" anyway. The marriage tax benefit? Why would you need that without an income tax? Health insurance benefits for spouses? That's a product of FDR's wage freeze + tax incentives given to corporations instead of individuals for health insurance. Give that benefit to the individual and that issue goes away. Social Security payments? Allow the next generation to "opt out" and go for health savings accounts and that issues goes away. The ability to visit your sick loved one in the hospital? Durable powers of attorney for healthcare took care of that a long time ago! Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or lying! Inheritance issues? Get a will or a trust! You need one anyway gay or straight. Gay marriage is such a non issue.

[erowe1]

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.

Again, we're not talking about allowing or disallowing anything. Gay people in North Carolina can still have weddings, make promises to each other, live together, have sex, and do whatever else with each other that they think "marriage" is.

[jmdrake]

Several items on that list easily handled with a power of attorney.
+rep. Actually just about everything on that list can be handled with a power of attorney. And some stuff on that list is just made up lies by the gay lobby. Take:

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

You can put anyone on your car insurance. Anyone. And whether a private company offers some special insurance package to married couples is (or should be) the purview of that private insurance company. I don't believe for one second that gays are having trouble finding companies willing to offer them package deals as couples. The same goes for home insurance. The homeless bum that you bring in off the street can be covered under your home-owners policy. The only sticky issue is health insurance and that's because of the stupid government policy of giving health insurance tax benefits to employers instead of individuals. The individual cannot go out and shop for the policy that best fits his needs but is limited to 1 or 2 options offered by his employer.


Again, I am not a lawyer and don't always use the right words. Whatever. Those privileges should be extended to same-sex couples as well.

No need. See above.

[Kelly.]

For the record, the title is wrong. No state has "banned" gay marriage. Two men or two women can go to a Universalist Unitarian church in any of the 50 states and get married. Their marriage just won't have the official "seal of approval" by the state. It's laughable that some in this movement who are soooooooo against government shed crocodile tears because one group is being left out of the "benefits" of government control sanction. Meanwhile if a man wants to marry two or more women, something that Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and other "patriarchs" in the Bible did, that man and those two women face arrest. Even if the ceremony is private and not a wedding ceremony, they still face arrest. Oh you can have 5 "babies' mamas", but have a private ceremony where you promise before God and man to love and cherish two or more of them, and now you deserve to be arrested and to have your children taken away. If I point out to some gay marriage proponents the question "What about polygamy" it's met with the scornful reply "How dare you compare polygamy to gay marriage!" It's true their is no comparison. One is sanctioned in the Bible (yes it always caused problems and I don't want more than one wife myself) and is seen throughout nature (lions horses etc). The other was attacked in both the Old and New Testament and people have to stretch to find any natural equivalent. Does America have to be ruled by the Bible? Of course not. But enough with the hypocrisy. Polygamy didn't make the "sexual revolution" cut like abortion and homosexuality because it goes in the opposite direction of the radical feminists. They have a problem with one woman being married to a man, let alone two. When polygamists get their rights, then talk to me about gays, who already have the right to marry being denied the privileges of marriage. Oh, and a Ron Paul presidency would get rid of - or redefine most of those "privileges" anyway. The marriage tax benefit? Why would you need that without an income tax? Health insurance benefits for spouses? That's a product of FDR's wage freeze + tax incentives given to corporations instead of individuals for health insurance. Give that benefit to the individual and that issue goes away. Social Security payments? Allow the next generation to "opt out" and go for health savings accounts and that issues goes away. The ability to visit your sick loved one in the hospital? Durable powers of attorney for healthcare took care of that a long time ago! Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or lying! Inheritance issues? Get a will or a trust! You need one anyway gay or straight. Gay marriage is such a non issue.

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

[Domalais]

Again, we're not talking about allowing or disallowing anything. Gay people in North Carolina can still have weddings, make promises to each other, live together, have sex, and do whatever else with each other that they think "marriage" is.


Really? Have you read it?


"Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

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.

[jmdrake]

And you support that?

If a hospital doesn't want to recognize someone's marriage, they shouldn't have to.

Irrelevant. Hospitals are required to recognize anyone's durable power of attorney for healthcare. And that's been universal long before Obama signed the executive order to that effect. You don't have to be sleeping with someone to be empowered to make medical decisions for them. Siblings have durable powers of attorney for healthcare for each other. That doesn't mean the state has to recognize incestuous marriages. A gay partner doesn't even have to announce to the hospital his relationship. He or she just needs to show the DPOAH to the hospital and be done with it.

[matt0611]

For the record, the title is wrong. No state has "banned" gay marriage. Two men or two women can go to a Universalist Unitarian church in any of the 50 states and get married. Their marriage just won't have the official "seal of approval" by the state. It's laughable that some in this movement who are soooooooo against government shed crocodile tears because one group is being left out of the "benefits" of government control sanction. Meanwhile if a man wants to marry two or more women, something that Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and other "patriarchs" in the Bible did, that man and those two women face arrest. Even if the ceremony is private and not a wedding ceremony, they still face arrest. Oh you can have 5 "babies' mamas", but have a private ceremony where you promise before God and man to love and cherish two or more of them, and now you deserve to be arrested and to have your children taken away. If I point out to some gay marriage proponents the question "What about polygamy" it's met with the scornful reply "How dare you compare polygamy to gay marriage!" It's true their is no comparison. One is sanctioned in the Bible (yes it always caused problems and I don't want more than one wife myself) and is seen throughout nature (lions horses etc). The other was attacked in both the Old and New Testament and people have to stretch to find any natural equivalent. Does America have to be ruled by the Bible? Of course not. But enough with the hypocrisy. Polygamy didn't make the "sexual revolution" cut like abortion and homosexuality because it goes in the opposite direction of the radical feminists. They have a problem with one woman being married to a man, let alone two. When polygamists get their rights, then talk to me about gays, who already have the right to marry being denied the privileges of marriage. Oh, and a Ron Paul presidency would get rid of - or redefine most of those "privileges" anyway. The marriage tax benefit? Why would you need that without an income tax? Health insurance benefits for spouses? That's a product of FDR's wage freeze + tax incentives given to corporations instead of individuals for health insurance. Give that benefit to the individual and that issue goes away. Social Security payments? Allow the next generation to "opt out" and go for health savings accounts and that issues goes away. The ability to visit your sick loved one in the hospital? Durable powers of attorney for healthcare took care of that a long time ago! Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or lying! Inheritance issues? Get a will or a trust! You need one anyway gay or straight. Gay marriage is such a non issue.

Very good post. This is pretty much how I feel as well.

[erowe1]

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.

So what? Let them adjudicate their problems in a private court. Keep the state out of it.

[The Free Hornet]

Those are not rights. Those are government privileges.

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!!!

[jmdrake]

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

Can you read? I said:


Does America have to be ruled by the Bible? Of course not. But enough with the hypocrisy.

If you wanted to use an analogy that fit what I actually wrote it would be this. "It's okay to outlaw having sex with a woman who's not on her period, but it's not okay to outlaw sex with a woman on her period". Or "Let's ban the eating of beef and chicken, but not the eating of pork and shellfish."

[Domalais]

So what? Let them adjudicate their problems in a private court. Keep the state out of it.


So **** need a private court but the straights can use the state courts.

[Kelly.]

i cant read very good.

my bad, you lost me at the bible stuff :D

[jmdrake]

i cant read very good.

my bad, you lost me at the bible stuff :D

My apologies for my angry response. I just got on to edit that out and you beat me to it. I don't believe in forcing the Bible on people, especially through the government. But it bothers me to see stuff sanctioned by the Bible made illegal for not good reason while we're running around granting "rights" to everybody else.

[asurfaholic]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

Actually that is against the law in NC. As well as guy on girl anal sex. As well as oral sex and tongue in the butt sex... and animal sex. All illegal in the great state of NC.

[Kelly.]

i wish there were no govt benefits that came with marriage licenses.
if that was the case, i doubt this would be an issue.

[James Madison]

i wish there were no govt benefits that came with marriage licenses.
if that was the case, i doubt this would be an issue.

Considering marriage licenses were created to stop interracial marriage I find it ironic people are clamoring for their right to get them.

[BenIsForRon]

Gay marriage is such a non issue.

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

The application of benefits for being married in most states is applied unequally, that is discrimination.

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.

[Domalais]

Considering marriage licenses were created to stop interracial marriage I find it ironic people are clamoring for their right to get them.

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

[tod evans]

Considering marriage licenses were created to stop interracial marriage I find it ironic people are clamoring for their right to get them.

People are clamoring for the legal benefits bestowed on those who are married.

This is yet another area where the federal government has overstepped it's constitutional bounds.

The constitution doesn't grant any specific rights/powers or status to those who are married.

[speciallyblend]

ban North Carolina!!! i am against all gov marriage but the anti gay folks are laughable! Anti-Gay folks are just bi-sexual folks choosing to be straight.

[Kelly.]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=205752


Why is the government involved in any way, shape or form regarding your personal, private and adult living relationships?

Where can you find in the Constitution the authority of the Federal Government to "make legal" (or illegal) any such arrangement? The 10th Amendment says if it's not explicitly in The Constitution it's none of the government's damn business.

More to the point, how can you possibly square any such position for or against any particular combination of family in the context of a word that is inherently religious in origin and meaning with The Establishment Clause?

You can't. But you sure can pander, and boy oh boy do we do a lot of that in politics. Obama now joins Gary Johnson who has also been trumpeting this as "an issue", and both are doing so in a means that simply applies more statism and more unconstitutional intrusion into your life and, in this case, bedroom than there is any justification for.

There is no justification for any such law -- for or against. I remind everyone that the original intent of "marriage laws" was institutional racism -- bigotry.

That's right -- the original laws were passed, right around 1700 in America, to prevent miscegenation -- the intermarriage of white people with other races, in this case blacks and Indians (Native Americans if you prefer.)

Yeah.

So we have laws that were flatly unconstitutional in their first instance but which pre-dated the Constitution. Indeed, Constitutional Amendments were actually proposed to enact miscegenation as federal policy on multiple occasions (at least three that I know of.) The laws on miscegenation were slowly struck after the Civil War but were not ruled unconstitutional until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Nonetheless it was not until 2001 that the last of them was actually repealed.

But the bigotry doesn't end there. Several States, including Florida, currently criminalize two people of the opposite sex cohabitating. Note that Obama says nothing about this even though a gay couple can live openly in Florida without violating the law as the Florida Statute specifically says "man and woman."

The State has no business being involved in this whatsoever. There is no legitimate argument for special privileges or penalties associated with one's living arrangement so long as the participants are all consenting adults. And there are penalties -- try being married with two incomes and you'll find out exactly how that works come tax time.

I'll be interested in applauding more statist behavior when someone can show me where in the Constitution it is authorized for the Federal Government to pass a law dealing with how two or more adults choose to live in the privacy of their own home. There is exactly one legitimate role for government in this regard, and that is to provide a venue in which voluntarily entered-into contracts can be enforced if necessary (commonly called a civil courtroom.)

If you want to create a contract for your living arrangement, have at it.

If you want to get married, go see a Priest.

And if you don't like this reality in the context of The Constitution, including The Establishment Clause, then pass an amendment under the lawful procedures to do so that confers upon the Federal Government the right to intrude into your bedroom and tell you whether your living arrangement is "lawful" or not.

Until then it's none of the Federal Government's damn business, whether you're gay, straight, white, black, brown or Martian and I for one am tired of the pandering incessantly displayed by politicians that are in fact nothing more than application of yet another boot to the neck of the people.

[Pericles]

+rep. Actually just about everything on that list can be handled with a power of attorney. And some stuff on that list is just made up lies by the gay lobby. Take:

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

You can put anyone on your car insurance. Anyone. And whether a private company offers some special insurance package to married couples is (or should be) the purview of that private insurance company. I don't believe for one second that gays are having trouble finding companies willing to offer them package deals as couples. The same goes for home insurance. The homeless bum that you bring in off the street can be covered under your home-owners policy. The only sticky issue is health insurance and that's because of the stupid government policy of giving health insurance tax benefits to employers instead of individuals. The individual cannot go out and shop for the policy that best fits his needs but is limited to 1 or 2 options offered by his employer.



No need. See above.

I defer to your expertise.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Actually that is against the law in NC. As well as guy on girl anal sex. As well as oral sex and tongue in the butt sex... and animal sex. All illegal in the great state of NC.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 legalized sodomy and consensual same-sex sex throughout the country. At the time, 14 states (including Texas) had bans on it.

Zoophilia is still illegal, of course. As it should be.

[Ranger29860]

I always find these discussions funny. To everyone that is against gay marriage or equality you are aware most states allow a form of "gay" marriage right? Or at least what most christian I have talked to consider to be a gay marriage.

[Brett85]

One thing I would certainly say is that the state of North Carolina has the right to pass this law. I can't believe the "libertarians" who believe that the federal government should violate the 10th amendment and prohibit the states from passing marriage amendments.

[Ranger29860]

The U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 legalized sodomy and consensual same-sex sex throughout the country. At the time, 14 states (including Texas) had bans on it.

Zoophilia is still illegal, of course. As it should be.

You know sodomy was illegal in the military up to last year I believe. This wasn't the don't ask don't tell issue this was a wholenother reg in the UCMJ that people were actually getting in trouble for.

[Ranger29860]

One thing I would certainly say is that the state of North Carolina has the right to pass this law. I can't believe the "libertarians" who believe that the federal government should violate the 10th amendment and prohibit the states from passing marriage amendments.

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.

[Brett85]

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.

So libertarians are opposed to states' rights and the 10th amendment? I'm glad I don't call myself a "libertarian" then. I actually believe strongly in the 10th amendment and states' rights. (As does Ron Paul, who believes there's no Constitutional right to "same sex" marriage.)

[matt0611]

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.

Why? The supreme court of the US should have nothing to say on this matter. This is something the people of the state of North Carolina should and have decided for themselves how to handle. The Feds have no right to get involved in this matter.

[cstarace]

This isn't a statist program. State-based Gay marriage is a statist program, and this prohibits North Carolina from engaging in it.
State-based heterosexual marriage is a statist program. Can't have state-based heterosexual marriage and not have state-based homosexual marriage. 14th amendment, due process.

[Ranger29860]

So libertarians are opposed to states' rights and the 10th amendment? I'm glad I don't call myself a "libertarian" then. I actually believe strongly in the 10th amendment and states' rights. (As does Ron Paul, who believes there's no Constitutional right to "same sex" marriage.)

lol 10th amendment is not a catch all for anything the states want to regulate. They are still bound by the other amendments and the bill of rights.

[Brett85]

State-based heterosexual marriage is a statist program. Can't have state-based heterosexual marriage and not have state-based homosexual marriage. 14th amendment, due process.

The 14th amendment was passed in order to free the slaves. What in the world does that have to do with "gay marriage?"

[Brett85]

lol 10th amendment is not a catch all for anything the states want to regulate. They are still bound by the other amendments and the bill of rights.

The states are bound by the Bill of Rights, but I've never seen the amendment that says, "the right of homosexuals to have government sponsored marriage shall not be infringed upon."

[matt0611]

lol 10th amendment is not a catch all for anything the states want to regulate. They are still bound by the other amendments and the bill of rights.

They aren't actually. A good book on this is "The 14th amendment and the bill of rights" by Raoul Berger.

Even if they were its irrelevant. Bill of rights has nothing relevant to say on this issue. (Except the 9th and 10th of course)

[cstarace]

The 14th amendment was passed in order to free the slaves. What in the world does that have to do with "gay marriage?"
Equal protection clause. Having state-sponsored benefits for straight couples and not for gay couples directly violates that.

[Ranger29860]

Why? The supreme court of the US should have nothing to say on this matter. This is something the people of the state of North Carolina should and have decided for themselves how to handle. The Feds have no right to get involved in this matter.

I already saw that you personally disagree but I believe that the 14th amendment addresses this issue. If someone decides to (and they will) take this to the supreme court because they view it as unconstitutional then the supreme court has every say in this matter. Now that being said if they come back and say its not unconstitutional I can live with it. A better way and a much more rewarding outcome is to not fight this legally but to try to change the culture.

[Ranger29860]

The states are bound by the Bill of Rights, but I've never seen the amendment that says, "the right of homosexuals to have government sponsored marriage shall not be infringed upon."

14th amendment

[cstarace]

The states are bound by the Bill of Rights, but I've never seen the amendment that says, "the right of homosexuals to have government sponsored marriage shall not be infringed upon."
Don't be purposely obtuse.

[Ranger29860]

They aren't actually. A good book on this is "The 14th amendment and the bill of rights" by Raoul Berger.

I'll put that on my summer reading list. Got a stack of school books I have to get through before I can even think about doing any recreational reading lol

[matt0611]

I'll put that on my summer reading list. Got a stack of school books I have to get through before I can even think about doing any recreational reading lol

LOL ok. Just so you don't think I'm insane, Ron Paul also has the same view of the Bill of Rights.

[Ranger29860]

LOL ok. Just so you don't think I'm insane, Ron Paul also has the same view of the Bill of Rights.

Well noone is perfect :P

[Brett85]

The 14th amendment was passed in the previous century, in order to make sure that blacks would never again be forced into slavery. How can anyone seriously think that the people who wrote the 14th amendment in the 1800's did so with the intention of allowing "same sex marriage" sometime in the future?

[cstarace]

The 14th amendment was passed in the previous century, in order to make sure that blacks would never again be forced into slavery. How can anyone seriously think that the people who wrote the 14th amendment in the 1800's did so with the intention of allowing "same sex marriage" sometime in the future?
You're again being intentionally obtuse. Did those words ever come out of my mouth?

[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!?

http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/joss-stone-hot-lesbian-kiss.jpg

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

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

Rev9

[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.