North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Ian]

One thought... from a Democratic electioneering standpoint it makes some strategic sense. If this were a November decision, it could serve as a "wedge issue" to help turn out all the rednecks and other backwards yokels down there,...

It's not just "down there" -- since places like California voted in gay marriage bans too (even though I think a district judge struck it down).

Also, not just rednecks, but African Americans by and large also oppose gay marriage pretty handily. And, overall, support for gay marriage across the country is evenly split. I don't think it makes sense, on this issue, to single out a certain area or demographic/ethnicity. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -poll?lite - I mean -- half of Americans support gay marriage and the other haif are rednecks and backwards yokels?

More or less, yes. There is plenty of ignorance and bigotry to be found in places like California too. I don't really apply a red/blue matrix to this judgement.

(Actually when I wrote "down there" I was literally just thinking about geography, seeing as how I live in DC. North Carolina would be "up there" to me if I lived where you live.)

[Svartalf]

Thanks for the article CES... it's garbage, as it calls on rational basis test and goes on to make claims that the state has legitimate interest in things where it has actually little, if any, and treats those claims for granted...

I mean, a country that receives massive immigration from poorer areas seldom has to encourage procreation in the first place, the first generations of immigrants generally procreate a lot before adjusting their birthrate to the local conditions, and while it is generally admitted that children born and raised in wedlock enjoy more favorable conditions than those who aren't, this is only a statistical fact that does not engage the state legitimate interest, as not all single mothers are unemployed couch potatoes who are going to live off food stamps and hooking... and the assumption that the nuclear family of one person of each gender being better than a cople of the same one is of the ASS U ME variety... dismissing the Massachusetts decision because other courts have decided differently is again statistical balderdash and an argument at the crowd.

Thet argument about marriage being by nature strictly a matter involving a husband and wife is of course a Hobson's choice, not a real debunk of people's rightful aspiration to marry a person of the same sex. The absence of a 'right to marriage' is not disputed, but the absence of valid reasons why the state should legally restrict its legal recognition of an old practice solely on the basis thatancient custom forbids it doesn't hold water in a country subject to the Rule of Law rather than to quaint customs and superstitions... I'm still waiting for a good class action from FLDS and muslims about their right to contract plural marriage...

Heck, the article even manages to make countersenses in using Romer v Evans as a justification... and calls on Lawrence v Tx for the wrong reasons... the fact that sodomy laws were struck down on one ground does not imply that a different approach would not have worked too, just that at the time, the court focussed on one aspect of the case.

[Seabass]

I posted this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating here ...

North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage And Civil Unions For Gay People

Goodbye 21st century, hello the 12th ... if you're in NC that is.

Voters in North Carolina have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman, in a defeat for gay rights advocates.

It will become the 30th state in the union to enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in its state constitution. Same-sex marriage has been illegal in NC for 16 years but can now only be legalised by another vote by the people.

With more than 97% of precincts reporting late on Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with 61% in favour and 39% against. The amendment declares that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognised in this state".

What's next, NC? Resurrecting the Jim Crow and miscegenation laws?

Well, I am all for gay marriage.

But, I am opposed to the righteous indignation of the suggestion that NC, while maintaining the currently prevailing view in the world, is somehow "12th century" and backwards. I mean - gay marriage isn't even legal in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... ed_Kingdom

So, I don't get why North Carolina would be the one that sparks the indignation. Why not another country that also bans gay marriage?

Only a decade ago or so, same sex marriage was prohibited in every country on earth. A few countries started out as trendsetters in this regard and a bunch now allow it. But, still, most countries in the world prohibit it. So, I mean, even those countries that allow it now have little room talk. It would be like Brazil ending slavery in 1885 and then in 1895 have a Brazilian be all like "slavery is so 12th century."

Because narratives are more important than facts.

[Svartalf]

One thought... from a Democratic electioneering standpoint it makes some strategic sense. If this were a November decision, it could serve as a "wedge issue" to help turn out all the rednecks and other backwards yokels down there,...

It's not just "down there" -- since places like California voted in gay marriage bans too (even though I think a district judge struck it down).

Also, not just rednecks, but African Americans by and large also oppose gay marriage pretty handily. And, overall, support for gay marriage across the country is evenly split. I don't think it makes sense, on this issue, to single out a certain area or demographic/ethnicity. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -poll?lite - I mean -- half of Americans support gay marriage and the other haif are rednecks and backwards yokels?

More or less, yes. There is plenty of ignorance and bigotry to be found in places like California too. I don't really apply a red/blue matrix to this judgement.

Anybody remember how the mormons managed to funnel funds into negative advertisement when prop 8 was up for ballot, and why they weren't stripped of their tax exempt status in the aftermath?

[Thumpalumpacus]

One thought... from a Democratic electioneering standpoint it makes some strategic sense. If this were a November decision, it could serve as a "wedge issue" to help turn out all the rednecks and other backwards yokels down there,...

It's not just "down there" -- since places like California voted in gay marriage bans too (even though I think a district judge struck it down).

Also, not just rednecks, but African Americans by and large also oppose gay marriage pretty handily. And, overall, support for gay marriage across the country is evenly split. I don't think it makes sense, on this issue, to single out a certain area or demographic/ethnicity. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -poll?lite - I mean -- half of Americans support gay marriage and the other haif are rednecks and backwards yokels?

This is all true. Proposition 8 here in California was defeated in large part due to Mormon activism, and black religious activism. The Proposition has been struck down, and will see further review, without a doubt. http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/1 ... p-8-trial/

The main page of that site is announcing that Obama is formally supporting gay marriage, too: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/

[Warren Dew]

What's next, NC? Resurrecting the Jim Crow and miscegenation laws?

Your thread title is mistaken. Gay marriage was already banned in North Carolina. This resolution just moved the ban from one set of laws to another.

You mean that the primary vote is actually an official state ballot? I'd have thought it was some kind of private event held by the GOP (especially since there won't be a Dem primary this time)... but given that the average voter is allowed to vote on only one party, the primaries are clearly a party matter, not a state one, so why would the state organize a ballot at the time of the primaries?

Yes, they are an official state ballot. The state organizes a ballot because the state legislators see some advantage in doing so. Note that some states don't use primaries, and instead have caucuses, which are more like the private events you envisioned.

[Coito ergo sum]

Thanks for the article CES... it's garbage, as it calls on rational basis test and goes on to make claims that the state has legitimate interest in things where it has actually little, if any, and treats those claims for granted...

You asked for a non-religious argument. You got one. And, your assessment is that the state has little legitimate interest -- but, the rational basis test only requires a little interest. Rational basis is a very easy standard to meet. And, what the article discusses as constituting legitimate interests of the State, courts have already found were sufficient to constitute legitimate interests.

I mean, a country that receives massive immigration from poorer areas seldom has to encourage procreation in the first place,

Your view of it. The State may determine that encouraging procreating is needed, all due respect to your individual opinion. That constitutes a non-religious reason. Whether that reason is or is not a particularly strong reason is another matter, and open to debate. But, what you said was that all the reasons advanced to support opposition to gay marriage were religious. I just wanted to point out that they aren't all religious.

Thet argument about marriage being by nature strictly a matter involving a husband and wife is of course a Hobson's choice, not a real debunk of people's rightful aspiration to marry a person of the same sex. The absence of a 'right to marriage' is not disputed, but the absence of valid reasons why the state should legally restrict its legal recognition of an old practice solely on the basis thatancient custom forbids it doesn't hold water in a country subject to the Rule of Law rather than to quaint customs and superstitions... I'm still waiting for a good class action from FLDS and muslims about their right to contract plural marriage...

Legally speaking, there won't be a "class action," because the lawsuit would only be for declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages. But, that aside, plural marriage is easier to oppose from the standpoint of legitimate state interests than gay marriage. There are many issues for which the state has an interest in limiting marriage to two individuals rather than multiple individuals, none of which have anything to do with religion. That's the reason I reject the arguments of those who oppose gay marriage on the issue of a slippery slope to polygamy.

I support gay marriage because I find the reasons advanced to oppose it to be weak. My solution to the problem would be for States to eliminate the word marriage from the law altogether, and make everyone considered to be "domestic partners" or "civil unions." Two people -- form a civil union - and then the laws that apply to those unions, including property rights, divorce, tax benefits, fringe benefits, etc. all apply. If you want to call yourself "married" then go to a church, synagogue or temple and be married there, in a purely private affair. If you want to be "married" to 10 people, fine -- but you can only be a "civil union" recognized by the state with one. Problem solved. But, of course, that will never happpen.

[Coito ergo sum]

One thought... from a Democratic electioneering standpoint it makes some strategic sense. If this were a November decision, it could serve as a "wedge issue" to help turn out all the rednecks and other backwards yokels down there,...

It's not just "down there" -- since places like California voted in gay marriage bans too (even though I think a district judge struck it down).

Also, not just rednecks, but African Americans by and large also oppose gay marriage pretty handily. And, overall, support for gay marriage across the country is evenly split. I don't think it makes sense, on this issue, to single out a certain area or demographic/ethnicity. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -poll?lite - I mean -- half of Americans support gay marriage and the other haif are rednecks and backwards yokels?

More or less, yes. There is plenty of ignorance and bigotry to be found in places like California too. I don't really apply a red/blue matrix to this judgement.

Anybody remember how the mormons managed to funnel funds into negative advertisement when prop 8 was up for ballot, and why they weren't stripped of their tax exempt status in the aftermath?

There is nothing wrong with a nonprofit 501c3 organization supporting or opposing a position on gay marriage. http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whi ... mber=12202

[Svartalf]

so they can collect money, free of taxes, claim immunity fromm government interference based on freedom of religion clause, and then meddle in politics and use that tax free money to organize propaganda and political corruption?

Lord! L ron hubbard was 110% right...

[Coito ergo sum]

so they can collect money, free of taxes, claim immunity fromm government interference based on freedom of religion clause, and then meddle in politics and use that tax free money to organize propaganda and political corruption?

Lord! L ron hubbard was 110% right...

Of course, it's a free country, and they have free speech.

There are limitations on what they can do. But, to suggest that they have no right to speak out on political issues would be ludicrous in the extreme.

I mean -- a 501c3 organization, such as PETA, speaks out on political issues all the time. Should they be stripped of their tax exempt status? They advocate vegetarianism, veganism, not wearing fur, and all that sort of thing, and they advance political positions in line with their animal protection causes all the time, and they lobby Congressmen to make laws all the time. Why not? That's the part of why they were formed in the first place.

[Svartalf]

Here, separation of church and state means "don't meddle in politics and the Man won't meddle with you"

Doesn't prevent individuals from political activites, of course, but cultual associations are prohibited from using their funds in the political arena, if they want to keep the special advantages of being classified as a religion... heck, here, non profit associations have to be careful if they engage in fundraising/commercial activities to support the association, or further its goal, because they are not really tax exempt (though their status means they don't pay sales or business tax). They enjoy a certain leeway from the taxman, but it depends on scale of the operation and the use of the funds... member fees could be treated as revenue, and donations are similarly treated as donations between strangers, and thus liable to taxing... charities enjoy a special status, but a charity that engaged in political lobbying would probably lose that status in a hurry... political parties are a special case all their own...

Our position is that as a group, either your goal is political, and then you create a party for that purpose, or it is not, and then the group doesn't meddle in politics... neither business concerns nor non profits are allowed to donate to political causes here for instance... doing so generally entails loss of any tax exempt status, and generally chages of corruption and/or fraud (tax or other).

[Coito ergo sum]

Here, separation of church and state means "don't meddle in politics and the Man won't meddle with you"

Yeah, but it doesn't mean that churches or mosques can't publicly speak on issues important to them, does it? If they are pro-something - like "pro charity" and want to support government assistance to starving and AIDS addled poor people in Africa, then they can publish, print and speak about it, can't they? That's a political issue.

Doesn't prevent individuals from political activites, of course, but cultual associations are prohibited from using their funds in the political arena, if they want to keep the special advantages of being classified as a religion...

The devil is in the details here. What do you mean? Are you sure that your religious organizations don't have the right to publish qua religious organizations?

Like - can Catholic churches pool their donations and make an advertisement against abortion?

Here in the US they can. I would hate it if they couldn't, even though I'm pro-choice.

heck, here, non profit associations have to be careful if they engage in fundraising/commercial activities to support the association, or further its goal, because they are not really tax exempt (though their status means they don't pay sales or business tax). They enjoy a certain leeway from the taxman, but it depends on scale of the operation and the use of the funds... member fees could be treated as revenue, and donations are similarly treated as donations between strangers, and thus liable to taxing... charities enjoy a special status, but a charity that engaged in political lobbying would probably lose that status in a hurry... political parties are a special case all their own...

Well, here, a religious organization is formed for religious purposes, and religions often proscelytize and preach. Many of the issues religions preach about are also political issues. If they can't form a church and use their church donations to advance the issues they care about, I would be shocked. They can here in the US.

Our position is that as a group, either your goal is political, and then you create a party for that purpose, or it is not, and then the group doesn't meddle in politics... neither business concerns nor non profits are allowed to donate to political causes here for instance... doing so generally entails loss of any tax exempt status, and generally chages of corruption and/or fraud (tax or other).

Well, here, like PETA, they have the same exempt status as a church - 501c3 -- except they are a charitable organization not a religious organization. PETA is subject to the same restrictions as a church. Look at how much political action PETA engages in. Churches have the same leeway. That is the way it is here, anyway.

[Svartalf]

The catholic church may advocate against abortion, by having clergy preach against it in church, or mention it in the press if they get interviewed... but they could not lawfully fund a campaign against it... and they've been banished from most publicly funded systems, like education (we still have almoners, but you have to seek them out, and they often are located outside of teaching establishments proper, as the same almoner often serves several. Similarly we no longer have nuns serving as nurses in public hospitals. Of course, we do have christian leaning media and press, that could launch such a campaign, but they'd do so without church funds going into it.

Nothing technically prevents a man of the cloth from engaging in politics, but they do that as private citizens, not representatives of the Church, and their statements do not engage the Church, similarly, eminent churchmen, like archbishops and the like, never make public their political leanings; we never heard one churchman on the news during the whole presidential campaign, and I don't expect to hear any until the legislatives are past. While we have several parties that define France by its christian history (generally pretty far on the right wing), or that emphazize christian values (cover the spectrum from fairly rightwing to paternalistic lefty), we don't have an official "church" party, endorsed by a practicing religion.

It's a real old story going back to 1905... politicos declared that the church would not meddle with them, or they'd meddle with the churches, hard. We've developed a whole culture about religion being a private practice, and any influence it may have on public affairs must go strictly through individual citizens and their stances, without any organized bodies taking part... As it is, churches are allowed to celebrate cult in publicly owned buildings (churches built before 1789, and many built since are public property), and are not taxed on the donations they receive, and have favorable tax treatment on their commercial/fundraising activities than a private operator would get. They toe the line, because the moment they try pushing too hard, they get rebranded as profit oriented societies using public property without lease or title and defrauding the treasury... they escaped that rather narrowly in the past, and some governments would not hesitate going through with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

The catholic church may advocate against abortion, by having clergy preach against it in church, or mention it in the press if they get interviewed... but they could not lawfully fund a campaign against it...

Speaking to the press and preaching in church is a campaign against it. What are you saying they can't do? Buy advertising space? Write letters to news papers? Blog about it? Hand out leaflets? Go door to door?

and they've been banished from most publicly funded systems, like education (we still have almoners, but you have to seek them out, and they often are located outside of teaching establishments proper, as the same almoner often serves several. Similarly we no longer have nuns serving as nurses in public hospitals.

Nuns can't be nurses? What if they pass the nursing school and examinations? I don't know what this paragraph is referring to as to publicly funded systems.

Nothing technically prevents a man of the cloth from engaging in politics, but they do that as private citizens, not representatives of the Church, and their statements do not engage the Church, similarly, eminent churchmen, like archbishops and the like, never make public their political leanings; we never heard one churchman on the news during the whole presidential campaign, and I don't expect to hear any until the legislatives are past. While we have several parties that define France by its christian history (generally pretty far on the right wing), or that emphazize christian values (cover the spectrum from fairly rightwing to paternalistic lefty), we don't have an official "church" party, endorsed by a practicing religion.

That seems strange and alien to me. I would think it valuable for the citizenry to know the political leanings of their Monsignor or other religious leaders. Might give them information on whether the people ought to continue as religious leaders...

[Svartalf]

Plz reread the edited previous post while I contemplate your new one.... your previous demanded a response that is a work in progress.