North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Calilasseia]

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?

[Thinking Aloud]

I'm increasingly convinced that the US is not terribly U, and mostly in a S.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When the Supreme Court rules, all of these state-level moves will be obviated. The reason why this movement to enact positive bans is afoot is because the supporters know that the tide is turning against them, and the are acting now while they still have the numbers. The demographics are such that it is only a matter of time, and they are terrified.

[Thinking Aloud]

Here's hoping!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed. I'm an optimist by nature anyway, but I think there are solid objective reasons to be optimistic specifically about this issue. It's beginning to mainstream.

[Svartalf]

Anybody knows when one of those gay marriage cases goes to SCOTUS?

Seriously, equal protection under the law and all that, and the only arguments in favor of one man+one woman are the only acceptable set all stem from religious teachings, ergo breach of first amendment anti establishment clause and voiding of the policy clause...

Gay marriage needs its Lawrence vs Texas, fast.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When the Supreme Court rules, all of these state-level moves will be obviated. The reason why this movement to enact positive bans is afoot is because the supporters know that the tide is turning against them, and the are acting now while they still have the numbers. The demographics are such that it is only a matter of time, and they are terrified.

"This erosion of the natural, God-given order of the Universe must stop. I am here today to call all righteous, God-fearing citizens of this sovereign State to battle against the forces of perversion, indecency, and Godlessness. The minds of our children are at stake, the minds God made pure in the womb are being corrupted by TV, movies, and science books. (Goes on like this for ten minutes.)"

[fretmeister]

To quote CJ Werleman this morning...

"Congratulations on banning gay marriage, North Carolina. And by congratulations, I mean go fuck yourself."

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Tyrannical]

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. Mormons, Muslims, and Furries.

[Svartalf]

and in a perfectly illegal way, since they passed state legislation that totally contradict higher level federal texts.

They (and 31 states before them), completely forgot about the necessary prerequisite steps of either getting a few points of federal law amended, like the bits in the constitution that guarantee equal protection to all citizens under the law, or the simpler process of declaring independance from the Union.

[MrJonno]

Anybody knows when one of those gay marriage cases goes to SCOTUS?

Seriously, equal protection under the law and all that, and the only arguments in favor of one man+one woman are the only acceptable set all stem from religious teachings, ergo breach of first amendment anti establishment clause and voiding of the policy clause...

Gay marriage needs its Lawrence vs Texas, fast.

Interesting the European Court of Human Rights have ruled there is no 'right' to marriage but if marriage is legal in a country it can't be discriminated against based on sexuality. It's actually something I agree with not sure why their is a right to a secular contract with tax advantages through thats not to say its probably not a good idea but a right?

Anything in the US that gives anyone a right to get married?

[Svartalf]

That's why there's no 'right to marriage' : no state has an obligation to give special rights and advantages to people passing a contract about living together and sharing their things.
Granting special status to such a contract is just an old custom that the states choose to honor.

Now, iz funny, in France teh ghey still can't have a proper marriage with the mayor reading the usual bits of the Code Civil and all... they still have to do with a lesser, simpler (but also less binding and easier dissolved) contract that is mostly used by hetero couples anyway.

Well, US law does recognize marriage, and has a lot of regs on it (like they even forced the mormons to renounce polygamy before they let them become US citizens)... so, even if there is no text that states "people have a right to marry", and states could one day decide to stop recognizing marriage status at all, that contract currently is definitely a part of positive law. Since they also have equal protection under the law and it's expressly forbidden to discriminate against people on basis of color, gender, or whatever else is officially treif to discriminate by, it ensues that under the US Constitution, where there is marriage, gay marriage cannot be forbidden.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Use and custom" applies here.

[Svartalf]

both of which rank lower than a city ordinance in the legal pyramid.

[Ian]

Can anybody explain why this issue was carried on North Carolina's Primary Election ballot, instead of on its General Election ballot in November? There was a lot of Republican turnout for this primary, with or without this referendum, but very little democratic turnout (nevermind independents).

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, who will also cast a vote for Romney while they're making sure gays can't marry. But if this isn't an issue, that's one less reason for the hillbillies to be incensed and motivated to vote. Obama carried North Carolina by the skin of his teeth in 2008, and the DNC no doubt wants the state to remain competitive for him this fall. So, why would they oppose the inclusion of this vote to the Primary ballot if you know it'll succeed then?