North Carolina and it's new amendment

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
North Carolina and it's new amendment

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html

 

( What next ? Are they going to start saying that a man and woman that live together, like my girlfriend and I, can't do so unless we are married ?)

 

North Carolina voters ban gay marriage civil unions.

by Liz Goodman / The Ticket

 

North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP's projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law. The amendment also means that a handful of North Carolina municipalities that extended benefits to the domestic partners of their employees will no longer be able to do so, since marriage is now the only valid legal partnership in the state. Former President Bill Clinton urged the state's voters not to support the amendment in robocalls, while President Barack Obama's office said he was also against the change.

Supporters of gay marriage out-raised and out-advertised their opponents in the lead up to the vote, emphasizing in TV ads that the amendment could also have repercussions for unmarried straight couples because of its vague language. The anti-amendment coalition raised more than $2 million, according to campaign finance disclosures, most of which came from small and large individual donations. The pro-amendment crowd, called Vote for Marriage NC, raised a little more than $1 million, with most of the money being donated by nonprofit groups, not individuals.

Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage, according to a Public Policy Polling poll. A majority of North Carolina voters support civil unions.Minnesota faces a ballot gay marriage ban in November, while Maine activists are hoping that residents have changed their minds and will vote to approve gay marriage this November after repealing its legalization in 2009. Lawmakers in Maryland, Washington and New Jersey passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage this year, though Gov. Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

but we are not talking about economics here.

Nice of you to recognize that.

 

Brian37 wrote:

But this is about the violation of the concept of "equal protection under the law". Since gays cannot marry that violates their rights to do the same thing heterosexuals can do. See how I can boil down something to it's core, but you have to with this issue, and with economics, have to fuck Ocham's Razor with the lube of delusion by making it needlessly complex.

Except that Supreme Court law tends to get rather complex because the justices rely heavily on the precedent of cases that happened before. Precedent can change how they decide compared to how they might decide if they were simply handed the Constitution with no knowledge of previous rulings.

So we have the equal protection argument. Seems a logical place to start. But the first thing the justices are going to ask is "what is the limiting principle?" In other words, does that mean that the government must recognize all marriages? If 3 people, 4 people, 100 people all want to get married shouldn't they also get equal protection? Incestuous marriages? Shouldn't they also qualify? Where do you draw the line and how do you define it? What marriages are constitutionally protected and which are not? 

If you say "yes all marriages are protected no matter what" well that throws a hell of a monkey wrench in our current tax and probate laws which heavily favor marriage. Government would be practically forced to do away with it. That kind of massive overhaul of our tax and benefit system isn't something that SCOTUS is going to take lightly.

If you say "no only gay marriage" why?

At the end of the day, SCOTUS is going to look at history and see that historically states have been free to define marriage however they want. They set the age limits, laws against blood relations, bigamy and polygamy. Then they will ask if there is some fundamental right that is being violated. There is no right to marry in the Constitution, there is none in any previous caselaw. So they will be presented with the choice of creating a new right, or allowing states to create their own laws. It is almost certain that they will step back and allow the states to decide.

Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE for SCOTUS to say that government can't regulate who can or can't get married. I would LOVE for them to say that government can't provide preference to people based on marital status. I would LOVE for SCOTUS to start interpreting the Constitution in a way that severely limits the power of government and forces it to repeal a whole bunch of laws. It would be great to be able to make a case that discriminating against poker players while allowing slot machines and the lottery is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, I didn't write the Constitution, and I am not sitting on the Court. As such, I am left with simply the ability to make an assessment of what I believe the Court will do. And the argument using the Equal Protection Clause has a snowballs chance in hell. Your best challenge on legal grounds is probably to get married in a state with liberal laws and then try to get it recognized in your state of residence, since states routinely recognize marriages done in other states even when said marriage would not have been recognized if it was conducted in state. That runs into the DOMA, which I believe has a very strong case that it is unconstitutional.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Legal and moral are TWO different things. The economic bullshit was only legal because it played upon the concept of "put it on the books and make the crime legal". But this issue on the ban is a rights issue, not a money issue and this is a clear case of majority tyranny, not legalized pickpocketing.

Legal and moral are two different things. That is what I am saying. I am fully supportive of gay marriage, like I said, I don't think government has any business requiring a license for ANY marriage. However, I don't think the legal argument is solid. I believe that the income tax is also a clear case of majority tyranny, so is the ban on my poker, the requirement for strippers to wear pasties, the ban on selling raw milk, the alcohol limits on beer, requirements to get various government permits and licenses and any of a million laws government has. But just because you or I don't like a law doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If I had written the Constitution I guarantee most laws would be unconstitutional, including this one. But I didn't. The question of whether or not a law is constitutional is completely separate from the question of whether or not a law is a good law. You, Digital and most of the gay rights movement seem to think that simply because the law is offensive it must be unconstitutional. Sorry, our court system doesn't work that way. 

This is a no brainer. This is not up for debate. It is dead wrong, period!

No you are not for gay marriage otherwise you'd know how wrong legally and morally this ban is. Don't be half assed about it. You are nothing more than the guy who owns the business telling the blacks, "yea you can eat here, but you have to sit in the back where no one can see you."

Gays are humans and gays love just like heterosexuals and thus should have the legal ability to sign ANY government sanctioned document.

IF you say you are for gay marriage, then fucking support it and don't be half assed about it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
You guys are talking about

You guys are talking about totally different things.

Beyond is saying how it IS.

Brian is saying how it SHOULD BE.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I sometimes wonder how a

I sometimes wonder how a radio/tv/internet show with these two as the hosts would do. The conflicts would gain significant ratings at first, the only question is if the average educational level would be sufficient to understand the topics under debate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=680340

Backlash over North Carolina's  Marriage Vote

 

By

 

Jeff Stacklin / Yahoo news.

 

The voters in North Carolina have spoken. Now get ready for some backlash. By the indications of posters to the state's Visit North Carolina Facebook page, the state's tourism business might take a hit this summer.  The Raleigh News & Observer noted that the "normally cheerful" Facebook page has become a sort of profane sounding board for critics of the measure. The page's moderator on Wednesday issued a plea for a more civil tone, reminding those who post that it is intended to be forum about travel, "and not a place for political discussion."

Tourism is big business in North Carolina. How big? According to the Viriginian-Pilot, visitors spent an estimated $17 billion in North Carolina in 2010. That was a 9% increase from the previous year, the newspaper reported. And the spending increase wasn't just in coastal and mountain hot spots. Of the state's 100 counties, 98 had an uptick in spending from 2009 to 2010.

As pointed out by "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart on Wednesday, one group of people who will most certainly be visiting the state this summer are the Democrats--for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., in September.

It should be interesting.

The newspaper singled-out one celebrity--former "American Idol" runner-up and current "The Celebrity Apprentice" favorite, Clay Aiken--as supporter of his home state. He told the newspaper in an interview, that he still loves his state, but not the new law.

"I don't want people talking bad about North Carolina," Aiken, who is gay, said in a phone interview. "I saw a lot of folks ... on Facebook and Twitter that were embarrassed to be from North Carolina or that people from North Carolina should be ashamed and embarrassed.

"And I think to myself, you know, you can be as mad as you want and think that all you want to, but you have to remember that 30 states did that before we did it and California was one of them. So you can kiss my foot if you want to talk bad about my state."

 

Holly shit, that has to be the most pathetic childish justification for the ban "We weren't the first state to proclaim homophobia in common law" all this asshole is saying is "Majority rules faggots".

 

It wasn't right when California did it either dumbass. Slavery was widely accepted and popular too, didn't make it right.

I am ashamed that our species produces assholes like you, wouldn't matter to me what state you live in or what country you lived in. An asshole is an asshole. Do humanity a favor and don't breed you homophobic fucktard!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Holly shit,

Brian37 wrote:

Holly shit, that has to be the most pathetic childish justification for the ban "We weren't the first state to proclaim homophobia in common law" all this asshole is saying is "Majority rules faggots".

It wasn't right when California did it either dumbass. Slavery was widely accepted and popular too, didn't make it right.

I am ashamed that our species produces assholes like you, wouldn't matter to me what state you live in or what country you lived in. An asshole is an asshole. Do humanity a favor and don't breed you homophobic fucktard!

??  How can a gay person be homophobic?  Shit, that would suck.

And yeah, majority does rule in this country.  The American Civil War settled that.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Brian37

Watcher wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Holly shit, that has to be the most pathetic childish justification for the ban "We weren't the first state to proclaim homophobia in common law" all this asshole is saying is "Majority rules faggots".

It wasn't right when California did it either dumbass. Slavery was widely accepted and popular too, didn't make it right.

I am ashamed that our species produces assholes like you, wouldn't matter to me what state you live in or what country you lived in. An asshole is an asshole. Do humanity a favor and don't breed you homophobic fucktard!

??  How can a gay person be homophobic?  Shit, that would suck.

And yeah, majority does rule in this country.  The American Civil War settled that.

I wasn't aware, or maybe I misread the quote, was the person saying this gay? Well if that were the case it would be an Uncle Tom and a self loathing one at that.

But as far as the Civil War, where did I ever advocate always for or always against either the majority or minority? I am glad the North beat the shit out of the South, in this case the "majority" was on the right side of history. When you are right you are right and the North was right. Not going to shed one fucking tear for any oppressive society.

That would be just like Texas trying to leave the Union today and become a Christian theocracy. The right to self determination is not an absolute nor should it ever be, especially if that "self determination" comes at the cost of oppression which the South wanted to maintain in slavery.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:It is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is difficult to conceive of a time barely three centuries ago and back to the beginning of time when civil governments took no interest at all in marriage at all. Birth, death, marriage records were all church matters to which the state was not a party.

What else hath the Treaty of Westphalia wrought that was unpredictable and certainly unintended? if they had foreseen gay marriage would we still be waging wars over Christian sects?

 

You are such a hero to the gay community, so much of one gay marriage is acceptable in Palestine because their right to self determination has produced gay equality there. Hope they get their own state so their Muslim clerics will be preforming gay marriages, and you know they will.

It is amazing to me the irony of an atheist clamoring over the rights of the minority is too fucking dense to see that just because someone is powerless or weaker in a fight makes them moral. Please oh Superman of rainbows tell me what a bastion of liberalism and pluralism Palestine would create for gays if given a state?

Or maybe we should simply allow them to have their Muslim theocracy and hope they get around to protecting minorities like gays or atheists or Christians or Jews.

I love it when blind people pontificate about the oppressed it sets off my irony meter. Thanks for the laugh hypocrite.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Being anti-gay

Vastet wrote:
Being anti-gay is hardly restricted to religious groups. There are atheists who are anti-gay.

Yep, including ones posting in this thread who claim not to be.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I wasn't

Brian37 wrote:

I wasn't aware, or maybe I misread the quote, was the person saying this gay? Well if that were the case it would be an Uncle Tom and a self loathing one at that.

But as far as the Civil War, where did I ever advocate always for or always against either the majority or minority? I am glad the North beat the shit out of the South, in this case the "majority" was on the right side of history. When you are right you are right and the North was right. Not going to shed one fucking tear for any oppressive society.

That would be just like Texas trying to leave the Union today and become a Christian theocracy. The right to self determination is not an absolute nor should it ever be, especially if that "self determination" comes at the cost of oppression which the South wanted to maintain in slavery.

Being on the "right side of history" is pretty easy when you have the power to rewrite it.

I find it interesting that out of all the western countries that had slavery only the southern United States had it ended by the sword.  Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Portugal, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, etc. all abolished it peacefully.  Here in the US it only cost 600,000 American lives, billions of dollars, and put a huge section of it's country in crushing poverty for a century.

Yeah, good job.

I also find it interesting that every single American ship that brought slaves from Africa to the US were from Northern states.  Hyprocisy?  They had it.

Or how about the fact that two thirds of all American abolition groups in the US were in southern states in 1830?

Illegalizing slavery was a war act to prevent European recognition of the Confederacy and to hopefully inspire southern slaves to revolt.  The average Northerner didn't give a crap about the slaves.  Illinois even had a law that made it illegal for a black person to even move there.

But bless those great moral crusader bluebellies.  Pbhtt.  "Here you go slaves, you'se free now.  Oh we know you guys don't have any possessions or know even how to read.  Go git yaself a good ol' job and prosper.  Just don't move No'th because we'un don't want anys competition for ours factory jobs."

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:You guys are

Watcher wrote:

You guys are talking about totally different things.

Beyond is saying how it IS.

Brian is saying how it SHOULD BE.

 

Thank you Watcher.

At least someone gets what I am saying. It is kind of like arguing about whether or not pot is legal. I smoke it, I want it to be legal, it should be legal but it is regulated by the states and the law that makes it illegal is in fact constitutional. 

 

Gay marriage, I support it, I want it to be legal, I want anyone who wants to enter any kind of marriage contract to be free to do so, but the reality is states regulate marriage and it is constitutional for them to do so. 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What I find amusing is that

What I find amusing is that most people don't even want to get married or at least they don't get married. So more than 60% of people will vote to stop gays from getting married but only around 48% will actually get married. It's like the proverbial gardener's dog who won't eat the cabbages but won't let anyone else eat them either. It's a real life example of people spitefully prevent others from having something that they have little use for or interest in themselves.

The decline of marriage is understandable though because it's a pretty horrible thing. It's like demanding the right to be put in prison.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
It is true that the poorly

It is true that the poorly educated and moderately educated members of America are choosing in larger and larger numbers to not marry.  However, the highly educated are just as likely to marry as ever.  Moreso their rate of divorce is much lower than it was 30 years ago.

Quote:

            The idea is spreading that, if a child has two parents, it makes no difference whether or not those parents are married. Parents are parents, the argument goes, regardless of the possession by some of what is referred to as "just a piece of paper"--the marriage license. But this idea is far from the truth. In general, the relationship of married parents differs significantly from that of unmarried cohabiting parents, and the difference has substantial consequences both for the couple and for their children.


            It has been found that the two groups have quite different preferences and expectations. Compared to the marrieds, the unmarrieds have:


A lower level of commitment to each other, and less reluctance to consider a possible breakup
 

A shorter time horizon in their life planning


Less merging of their financial, social, emotional, and work lives
 

Less sexual exclusivity 


            Associated with this difference, according to numerous studies, are the following facts. The unmarrieds:
 

Are 50% more likely to break up


Have much higher rates of spousal abuse
 

Live at a lower economic level


Have lower levels of happiness (both men and women), and derive fewer physical and mental health benefits from the relationship
 

Receive less help from their extended families
 

Have worse sex lives 


            The consequences of these circumstances for children are remarkable. The children of unmarried parents:
 

Have fewer economic resources


Receive less parenting from their fathers
 

Face a much greater risk of parental break-up, leading to two to three times the risk of having serious social problems when they become adolescents and young adults, such as juveniles delinquency and teenage out-of-wedlock childbearing 


            If the father is biologically unrelated to the child, which is much more often the case in unmarried families, the child is no better off than living with a single mother. And, compared to a child living with two natural parents, the child is much more in danger of being seriously abused both sexually and physically.


            It is estimated that almost half of children growing up today will spend some time living with an unmarried, cohabiting couple. This should be considered a national tragedy. For our nation's children, one of the worst things that could befall them would be a continuation of the current shift away from marriage.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure about this

I'm not sure about this thing you're quoting because it seems to be completely unsourced but according to Pew Research the percentage of people in the US with college degrees who are married dropped from 76% to 64% between 1960 and 2010 which is a pretty steep decline and puts the marriage rates of college educated people today well below those of non-college educated people in 1960.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

So I guess if getting married gives some indication of how smart you are then college educated people today are almost as smart as high school dropouts were 50 years ago.

Similarly if you look at the association between divorce rates and education people with the lowest and highest education levels have basically the same divorce rates.

Quote:
The least (no high school diploma or GED) and the highest (college degree) educated women share the lowest rate of first divorce, with 14.4 and 14.2 per 1,000, respectively.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103161830.htm

It's no surprise married people have more money the whole point of it is trying to impose a set of values on people by creating economic incentives to do these things.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well my above quote is taken

Well my above quote is taken from this article: 

Married and Unmarried Parents
A Research Summary
David Popenoe, PhD
Professor of Sociology
Rutgers University

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Popenoe/Popenoe-Married.html

But the comment about education levels and marriage you can find all over.  Such as:

"When Marriage Disappears is the title of a recent study on the status of marriage in America. (1) According to the study, marriage is “stable” in only one segment of our society - the highly-educated - which comprises about 30% of the population. (p. ix) (2) In the rest of society, marriage is on life support - the divorce rate is high, the number of unwed mothers continues to grow, cohabitation has skyrocketed, fewer children live with both of their parents, and satisfaction with marriage is declining. (p. 14) "

http://wysu.org/commentary.php?recnum=364

"Marriage strong among college educated, but 'retreat from marriage' under way among others"

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765575447/Marriage-strong-among-college-educated-but-retreat-from-marriage-under-way-among-others.html

"The decline in traditional families is especially acute, as Charles Murray describes in Coming Apart: the State of White America, 1960-2010, in working class communities. Highly educated well-off populations continue to marry.

 

http://www.lizpeek.com/index.php/site/article/from_gingrich_to_romney_to_tebow_--_why_is_the_media_so_out_of_touch_with_a/

"More education means more faith in marriage, new report says"

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-06/living/marriage.trouble.report_1_marriage-and-divorce-mothers-national-marriage-project?_s=PM:LIVING

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I could actually accept

I could actually accept pretty much anything you say about the apparent benefits of being married on face value without citation because for me the pertinent question is whether it really has anything to do with marriage.

If the people around you decided that if you are a single mother or couple who lives together they will throw you a party, give you gifts and treat you as if you've done something worthwhile and responsible; If governments said they like what you're doing and they'll give you civil benefits to make your lives easier, afford you a level of social acceptance others don't have to give you more opportunities, and make things even easier for you by discriminating against people who aren't doing what you do then I think the result of that would be obvious.

Given that, I wonder if marriage is so beneficial then why does it need to be propped up in these ways. Why can't it compete with every other social arrangement based on its merit and enrich people's lives on its own?

To me what your citing only show that educated people display more shrewdness in their economic decisions which is something we already knew. I don't see that it says anything about the inherent value of the institution.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft