North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Svartalf]

I'm no good at politics, but I just didn't get a thing about what you said Ian.

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?

[Tyrannical]

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.

A common misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.
Equal protection is not the same as equal desire. A gay man is free to marry a lesbian woman, but only one at a time.

[Svartalf]

Can you give one solid reason why the law would differentiate between men and women's allowable wedding partners that is neither a blatant case of illegal discrimination based on gender nor a breach of the non establishment clause? Every motive to restrict gender choice in marriage, not to mention the number of allowed marriage partners are religion based. I can understand that entities that provide spousal benefits (like employers giving health insurance) would refuse to cover more than one spouse, I don't see how the state has any overriding interest in telling the gay they can't marry the one they love, unless you admit that marriage law is directly based on Jewish law that forbids homosexual bonds... but since it's already established that the gay are entitled to sodomizing each other in the privacy of their home, denying them the right to be legally each other's spouse, with the consequences appending thereto, makes no legal sense.

[Ian]

I'm no good at politics, but I just didn't get a thing about what you said Ian.

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?

Not all states have the same rules about primary voting. Some allow you to vote only in whichever party is holding a primary election contest, i.e. your voter registeration card must show "Republican" if you want to vote in the Republican primary. Others allow all registered voters to vote in their primaries (generally this means that people with no party affiliation can vote in a primary instead of waiting for the general election).

I'm not sure about North Carolina, but the state couldn't have put this issue on the ballot if the only people allowed to vote were registered Republicans. I should check out the details of this issue; I'm still unsure about why a state-wide referendum was included on the primary election (when turnout is skewed to one party (whichever is holding a contested primary), and far short of what it will be in November) rather than the general one.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A common misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.
Equal protection is not the same as equal desire. A gay man is free to marry a lesbian woman, but only one at a time.

A Hobson's Choice isn't held to satisfy the equal-protection clause.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

Not in the US.

[Svartalf]

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

Not in the US.

meaning that customs that have become habits, and suddenly are legislated against are still legal to practice? So how come you no longer can get cocaine at your pharmacist's and opium dens have disappeared from sea ports?

Or for that mmatter that the eighteenth amendment was enforced at all...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

Not in the US.

meaning that customs that have become habits, and suddenly are legislated against are still legal to practice? So how come you no longer can get cocaine at your pharmacist's and opium dens have disappeared from sea ports?

Or for that mmatter that the eighteenth amendment was enforced at all...

When you meet the Wizard, tell him your strawman needs a brain.

[cowiz]

If we allow gays to marry, they will move in together and tastefully decorate their houses. There will be a nationwide shortage of soft furnishings, curtains and quality shag pile carpeting. We CANNOT allow this to happen!

[Svartalf]

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

Not in the US.

meaning that customs that have become habits, and suddenly are legislated against are still legal to practice? So how come you no longer can get cocaine at your pharmacist's and opium dens have disappeared from sea ports?

Or for that mmatter that the eighteenth amendment was enforced at all...

When you meet the Wizard, tell him your strawman needs a brain.

Seriously, that's how your answer sounded like.

Custom is fine, but the tiniest of statutes or local regulation is enough to make it illegal, provided that the regulating authority does have power in that area and the reg is not in itself contrary to higher ranked regulation.

[Coito ergo sum]

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."

[tattuchu]

Guys marrying other fellows? Christ on a cracker, what's next? People marrying their dogs?!

Actually, lemme know when that happens so I can sign up for it

[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?

[Coito ergo sum]

Can you give one solid reason why the law would differentiate between men and women's allowable wedding partners that is neither a blatant case of illegal discrimination based on gender nor a breach of the non establishment clause? Every motive to restrict gender choice in marriage, not to mention the number of allowed marriage partners are religion based. I can understand that entities that provide spousal benefits (like employers giving health insurance) would refuse to cover more than one spouse, I don't see how the state has any overriding interest in telling the gay they can't marry the one they love, unless you admit that marriage law is directly based on Jewish law that forbids homosexual bonds... but since it's already established that the gay are entitled to sodomizing each other in the privacy of their home, denying them the right to be legally each other's spouse, with the consequences appending thereto, makes no legal sense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Secu ... x_Marriage

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." These are the words that appear on Proposition 8 in California, a ballot initiative that will be voted on in November 2008 to ban same-sex marriage forever in the state. It's a very saddening experience for same-sex couples to go through when they realize they can never get married in the state, nor would the state recognize their marriage performed elsewhere. Of course, in states where same-sex marriage is not constitutionally banned, it's possible to fight a statute that prohibits it in court. However, legal arguments for same-sex marriage don't hold as much water as a state's interest in restricting marriage to a man and woman. This essay will discuss a couple of the legal arguments made by advocates of same-sex marriage.
The first argument made is the equal protection argument. Now, before we get into this, we must all have a through understanding of the type of reviews used to decide equal protection cases, and if you already know them, then just bear with me for this paragraph. First off, there are three types of reviews used to decide equal protection cases, which are strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. Normally, strict scrutiny is used for suspect classifications, and sexual orientation does not fall under suspect classification, only a "quasi-suspect classification" under United States law. Normally, the argument made against same-sex marriage in court is decided on a rational basis test, since there are no suspect classifications in marriage laws, and there is no discrimination based on gender or alienage, in which case intermediate scrutiny would be used. A rational basis review requires the state to show a legitimate state interest and how the discrimination is rationally related to it. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to this classification; the classification is based on the relationship. A same-sex couple is not necessarily homosexual, though the vast majority of people in same-sex relationships may be gay. What sort of rational basis would a state have to deny same-sex couples marriage? The most common one used is procreation. Rationally speaking, it is only possible for a man and woman to procreate, so the state has an interest in promoting procreation and child-rearing within wedlock, and to protect the nuclear family. To reiterate, since gay people as individuals are not denied from marrying, the issue is not based on the sexual orientation, but on the relationship between two people of the same sex. Although Massachusetts has argued against this and ruled differently, several courts in several states have ruled in favor of this argument, including those in Washington, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota. They've made no distinctions for fertility or age either, making it clear that they are exceptions and that marriage is for the purpose of propagating society and protecting the nuclear family unit. As bigoted as it sounds, it's true.
The whole "prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates against gay people" argument doesn't work here, because as the Supreme Court ruled in Romer v. Evans, sexual orientation is only subject to a rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. As the Court has also ruled in Lawrence v. Texas, the striking down of sodomy laws did not pave the way for same-sex marriage, because it was ruled on the grounds of substantive due process instead of equal protection, and that could hurt the legal arguments for same-sex marriage a lot.
The next argument is the parallel to interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that bans on interracial marriage are not constitutional on equal protection grounds, including using language like "fundamental right to marry." Fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. However, same-sex marriage is not. Marriage is defined as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This means that as a person, you have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. The ruling in Loving simply reaffirmed that right by not making race a factor in marriage, and according to Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling made just years after Loving, stated, "n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." Race is immutable, but a relationship (not sexual orientation) is not.
Love is not a de jure requirement for marriage. That's something that must be understood. If a man and woman wanted to get married, they would be allowed, no matter if they truly loved each other, not matter if they were straight or gay. Anyone can have relationship with whoever they want, but if they want a marriage, they have to be with someone of the opposite sex. That's what the law requires, as well as both members of the couple being of age and not being consanguineous, and consenting. Those are the requirements, not being in love. This is not being said to be intolerant, this is merely the sad truth.
Now, do I, the author of this essay, support same-sex marriage? Of course I do, what liberal doesn't? However, court battles are not the answer to legalizing it. Instead of winning over judges, you should try to win over the hearts of people and have them democratically legalize it. They want to have a say in marriage too, it's not just something very important to same-sex couples. We all want to have a say in marriage, and if we can convince people through political, not legal, arguments that same-sex marriage is okay, we can truly achieve justice in the name of democracy.
Same-sex marriage is not something that is. It is only what should be.

[Svartalf]

Because if you start looking at marriage, and the usual restrictions put on it, from a legal and human rights standpoint, those restrictions make no sense and serve no valid purpose. Moreover, they go against some very basic principles from the constitution, especially since such interpretations as "separate but equal" have been rendered obsolete and void. Basically, such restrictions are unconstitutional, and just waiting for a good case for SCOTUS to do away with them if the Nazgûl do their job correctly... a fortiori, it is illegal for individual states to enshrine such restrictions in their individual constitutions.