I am not gay, but what business is it of mine or the government to worry about what people do ? What are they going to go after next ?

Now, while I have no way of providing sources on this. I would be willing to wager that 90% of the people that voted on this, did so because the BIBLE and their pastors told them to. 

Agreed. That was new information to me about the "Supremacy Clause." I'll have to look that up. 

Don't in the future accuse me of being a word for word memory expert of the constitution. I am much more a "motif" guy in the context that you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know it doesn't run on pixy dust.

The motif that has been argued of the "Supremacy clause" in many cases is simple. It is the simple concept that the rights of the majority do not trump the rights of the few.

State vs federal has always been a battle. But the motif that is iron clad in the Constitution is that no matter what issue, there is a ban on stagnation and absolute power and monopolies. It is the concept of allowing for every voice to compete. It is not a perfect tool, otherwise NC voters wouldn't be dip shits as a majority.

But the concept is very simple to explain to anyone, "What would you yourself want as far as government protection if you were holding an unpopular position"

Since power shifts over time, the brilliant concept was to ban any opportunity of stagnation. So while the voters won. It still does not mean they have absolute power. Just like women and blacks eventually used the same tool of the constitution via free speech and media and government in all those tactics, to eventually gain mainstream acceptance.

Isn't it great that the republican party is the one that is against government interference in people lives?
Just imagine if they weren't.

Two things:

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

1. I would love you to explain how, just because you don't like it and it is stupid, bigoted etc. doesn't make it unconstitutional.

2.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)

Hardly a "broad statement saying that being gay is wrong" seems pretty specific and limited to its stated purpose to me. How else would you word it?

@Jabberwocky

More misinformation that has been spread throughout the internet- the state of North Carolina doesn't recognize common law marriage already so this amendment will not have any effect on those situations. Even if it did, I am doubtful it would be legally found to nullify or prevent such marriages, no similarly worded law in any state has as far as I am aware. I suspect that this claim was simply made up by some blogger and has been spread by commentators who are ignorant of and too lazy to research the law. 

In researching this claim though I did discover  that in NC you can marry your first cousin at age 14... yet the moral outrage is aimed at two consenting adults?!? That's more than a little fucked up.

http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/marriage-laws.aspx

So, some of these people that were voting against this amendment could have been married to their first cousins, and could have married them when they were 14 ? DAMN. I would have thought that would have been highly illegal.

Welcome to the Bible Belt, where ignorance is virtue and the first amendment does not exist -- (I don't know who quoted that, I saw it on Facebook)

I wonder what the theists think about that line in Deuteronomy, where it states that marriage is only valid if the girl is a virgin. If the girl is not a virgin, the two shall be put to death ?

I've started to conclude that marriage itself, any/all, should be banned. That'll put an end to marriage inequality.

It is not enough to simply say "I agree it is bigoted, but constitutional". I doubt anyone reading this would have the balls to face the people in this video and try to argue it's Constitutionality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gP61wDGAmXA

The religious right and all fear mongers, even on the left ARE treating these people as second class citizens.

We are not talking about free speech here. We are talking about saying to a fellow citizen " I can do this, but you cant" by mandate of mob rule by popular vote. Same thing was done to interracial couples, and some states even today ban atheist from holding even low level government jobs through a written singed "litmus test" to god.

If we cannot as a society treat the least among us as equals, then the constitution means nothing.

Well for one, I'm not Constitutional lawyer, but if it's unconstitutional then cool.  The Fed will overturn it.  So no reason to fret.

First you have to prove that a white male in America is a minority if he wants to marry another man.

A white male is not considered a minority in America.  So it will not be considered unconstitutional.

C'mon man.  You hear how these theists talk.  They sputter all the time that if we allow gay marriage then a human marrying a dog will come next.  Bestiality is illegal and it's not challenged as unconstitutional by dogfuckers.  Their mindset will go along the same lines. 

I don't agree with it.  What do you want me to do?  Grab a gun and find a tower?

I'll vote if it comes up here in my area, is that good for ya?

And I know all about litmus tests about god to hold office in some states.  I live in Texas.

Texas' Bill of Rights Section 4:
"RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

...religious, but examples such as the vatican accepting evolution show that religion can change its position provided its members are properly educated.

Make everyone smarter and issues like these will vanish, and not even religions can stand against the obvious.

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?

My opinion is that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with determining who can and can't get married. I believe you should be able to marry one person of the same gender or a dozen people of varying genders. I don't think married people should be given any preference under the law like they currently get. I don't think you should even need a license. Marriage is a contract and like any contract the terms should be determined by the willing participants and the governments sole responsibility is to enforce the terms of the contract and provide a third party to resolve any disputes. Married people shouldn't get favorable tax laws, favorable probate laws or be treated any different than a couple of people living together as roommates.

So show me the "facts". There is nothing in Supreme Court precedent that indicates that the government refusing to recognize gay marriage is unconstitutional. I'm all for gay marriage, but just because you support something doesn't mean that using the courts is the proper way to get it. There are a lot of laws I would love to be declared unconstitutional and many laws I believe there are strong arguments are unconstitutional. In our system when SCOTUS declares something is constitutional it is whether you like it or not, no matter how strong you think your argument is. If you can find a case that you believe indicates I am wrong I would love to see it, just post the citation and I will read it.

In the case of gay marriage bans I don't think there is any evidence that they will be declared unconstitutional- it is a classic case where SCOTUS will almost certainly defer to the legislatures. While I can make some pretty strong arguments against the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, ultimately I recognize that those arguments will not persuade the Supreme Court. Marriage is a state issue and as such gay rights activists are best off focusing on getting gay marriage laws passed at the state level, in that respect they have my full support, and so do polygamists, bigamists and people who want to marry a duck.

The issue with the state legislation is that they are motivate by local religious agendas which are dictated by bullshit jesus freaks who say that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a crock of shit since they are completely mixing their religious beliefs directly in to the constitution. No state is supposed to pass any laws which give benefit to one minority and degrade another. The federal government is supposed to protect and balance all creeds, races, nationalities, handicaps and sex; this includes if they are heterosexual or homosexual.

The constitution has been used to allow black to be free, blacks men to vote, women to vote and to legalize abortion. While it is a temporary win for those self satisfying cock suckers they will eventually lose. Being gay isn't a choice. It's chemical and biological in nature and not a person waking up one day and saying, "hey I'm gay today and not tomorrow".

Do you think that any state would be allowed to take away the rights of women to vote? No. Why? Because "all men are created equal"; and women.

Do you think that any state would be allowed to take away the rights of blacks to be free? No. Why? Because "all men are created equal"; and women.

I have issue with the people who push their religious agenda on others. It's self satisfying and self centered to think that their religion is right and all others all wrong. This is why Prop 8 in California has been found unconstitutional and will be overturned. It is why all other states which currently have anti-gay laws will eventually lose just like the states which prevented women from voting or blacks from being free.

I'd like to point out that it would be illegal to have a state vote and remove the right of women to vote so it is illegal for them to remove the pursuit of happiness of others. This would include gay marriages.

There is nothing in the Constitution that invalidates laws simply because they are religiously motivated. A good number of our laws are religiously motivated and none has ever been found unconstitutional on those grounds. The only thing the Constitution says in respect to religion is that 

Does this law respect an establishment of religion? Clearly not. Does it prohibit the free exercise thereof? If you really stretch you might be able to make that argument. I made it myself once on this site as an alternative argument that could be offered in court, mostly because I think it would be hilarious to declare that marriage is a fundamentally religious institution and watch the fundies argue that it is not. I don't think the argument gets much mileage in SCOTUS. In Reynolds v. United States 98 US 145 (1879) the Court made it clear that states can regulate what types of marriages are legally recognized even if that means certain people are not able to marry in the form dictated by their religion. A mormon polygamist in this instance. There has been no case since where SCOTUS has shown any inclination to overturn this ruling.

Where does it say that? You can argue that the spirit of the Constitution is such but spirit doesn't matter. We are talking a legal issue and nowhere in the Constitution does it mention nationality, handicaps, or sexuality. Religious beliefs, race and gender are specifically protected.

Blacks being free, voting and women voting were all done in amendments that specifically bring out those classes. Namely the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. There is no amendment that says anything about marriage of any type. If you amend the Constitution you can make anything unconstitutional that you desire. As far as abortion, it is not entirely legalized. States can and do routinely regulate how abortions can be performed, when, who can perform them and what situations a woman may or may not have an abortion. It is not protected as an absolute.

Has nothing to do with "all men are created equal" a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Both are protected by the Constitution through amendments. Why did we need an amendment? Because it was not already guaranteed. 

Neither amendment says anything about sexuality. 

The only other text in the Constitution that is semi relevant to the topic is section 1 of the 14th Amendment

This is the amendment that lawyers trying to push court cases to protect gay marriage use. Specifically the part about equal protection of the laws. However, their arguments are really stretching since in determining what "privileges or immunities of citizens" are the Court usually uses popular tradition as a measure. Whatever gay marriage is, it is not traditional. As far as equal protection, the Court has used that clause to apply protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 14th Amendment, states did not have to abide by the Bill of Rights at all. They could do whatever they wanted.

I have issues with people who want laws. It is self satisfying and self centered to think that your laws are right. However, as self satisfying, self centered and self serving laws tend to be that does not make them unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit found Prop 8 unconstitutional, so what? Their opinion isn't going to matter when it goes to SCOTUS and the 9th Circuit is a heavily biased court that best known for being the most overturned lower court in the country.  

The phrase "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the Constitution either. Before you "beat my brains in" with facts you should probably find some and try reading the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

It doesn't. Nor does it say anything about guaranteeing they can marry. Nor does it enumerate defining marriage as a federal power. Therefore, the power to define a legal marriage is left to the states. They can define marriage to allow gay marriage or not to allow it, to allow polygamy or not to allow it. It is called federalism. So if you really want gay marriage you have to work to persuade your fellow citizens to vote appropriately. You are not going to find relief in the courts every time you don't like a law.

Name a law at the federal level which is religiously motivated and gives benefits to others while denying others and is constitutional?

Most of what I was speaking about was not specific to the constitution, the only thing I misquoted was that all men are created equal.

And since you are being anal about amendments not being the constitution, you seem to have claimed that the 14th amendment was in the Constitution. All amendments are related to the bill of rights or there after.

In time the christians will lose more grip on things and eventually be a minority as well other religions.

Laws which bring balance to all and for the greater good are needed. People who push their own private agenda are the problem here. I'm not wanting any thing other than peace and quiet in the world. Want to be a chrisitan? Sure, go right ahead, but leave me alone and don't knock on my door telling me about your false prophet.

And you still need to get your brains bashed in by a roll of sheep skin. No state should allow their people to vote against a minority in such a way.

I think it's pretty easy to say gays are morally in the right but whether they are legally is a more difficult question. Gay marriage proponents in the US have argued at least three reasons for same-sex marriage bans being unconstitutional. One is that they violate the full faith and credit clause of article 4 of the constitution which requires all states to recognize public acts of other states which of course includes marriage contracts. States are relieved of observing this due to a federal law which the US department of justice now  considers to be unconstitutional and no longer defends in court. 

Another is that they violate the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution specifically substantive due process which is the idea that there are limits to legislative authority especially when denying individuals their liberty or property and particularly when it comes to the policy enactments of the majority placing minority groups at an significant disadvantage. 

There is also the argument that they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because marriage as an civil institution affords individuals civil benefits and equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits. This is a powerful argument but equal protection does not require that the state treat different people the same. The state doesn't have to allow minors to purchase cigarettes just because people above the age of majority can for example. What it does require is that there be a rational basis for these  classifications being created and used to treat people differently. Same-sex marriage opponents no doubt believe there is a rational basis for the laws but let's face it there  probably isn't. Beyond that laws that negatively affect disadvantaged groups like women,  racial minorities and non-citizens often must be held to a higher level of legal scrutiny. It's not enough that they are merely reasonable. 

It's shitty to think people have to struggle just for equal treatment but considering that homosexual relationships were criminalized in the US until 2003 to me it seems like pretty big success story.

It is with out hesitation, an unconstitutional law. It with out hesitation is an unfair voting against a minority.

Sexual preference is not some thing which people choose. It is given at birth from a chemical reaction through genetic material. Parents pass this trait along to their children, it isn't a multiple choice for these people.

For example, there are people in this country who won't have sex. They have no, none, nil, nada attraction to either male or female. They are an extreme minority. They are aromantic account for less than 2% of the population of the world. We see no legislation against them because they fly under the radar.

Science has shown that they have hormone in balances which cause them not to want to have sex. Yes, they still get married for financial reasons but usually they go single for their entire lives.

I know several people like this and they have no desire to have sex, procreate or to be intimate with any one.

The ruling is that men and women should be married because it is natural. It is for the reason of procreation. It's been that way for thousands of years, blah blah blah.

So when these people get married but have no desire to procreate or to have sex, then they too should not be allowed to get married?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution

And what about people who use machines to masturbate? Are they given consideration? What if they don't want to have sex with a man or a woman but only want to use machines to have sex? Should they be included in this new law?

See, it discriminates against gays. It focuses on one religious viewpoint which is that "hey we are christians and we say what you are doing in the privacy of your own home is wrong and we don't do it so you shouldn't do it".

Well fuck that point of view.

Next thing you know they will be telling heterosexual people that you can't have oral sex.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/crime-against-nature-oral-sex-felony-in-nc/

http://www.ncgala.org/guide/guidecan.htm

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/north-carolina

Ok.... why? There is very little in Supreme Court precedent that supports your claim, it certainly is not a law that is a slam dunk where you would see a 9-0 case in SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional. To pretend that it is simply because you want it to be is denying the reality of our law and how it works. 

Ok, so you lay out why the law is stupid. Laws are not unconstitutional just because they are stupid or silly. Until recently laws against sodomy were common. They were overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. The legal argument was based upon same legal argument that supports Roe vs. Wade. Both arguments rely upon the due process clause and the murky "right to privacy" which isn't specifically defined but current law is that there are some actions which are so private that government does not have power to legislate. That line is still not clear and will be several decades before we have enough cases to draw a clear line and tell with any certainty exactly which issues are protected by the right to privacy and which are not. 

So can the same argument be used to protect gay marriage? Unlikely. All cases that relied on the due process clause and the right to privacy involve actions that are inherently private. Marriage is not a private action. In fact, the whole argument is over whether homosexual marriages should be recognized publicly. The law is not about having a homosexual relationship, having sex in private or making medical decisions. It has nothing to do with anything that has been included in the right to privacy in the past. A law against homosexuals cohabiting would have a strong argument under the right to privacy. 

However, gay marriage is not private- it is requesting that the marriage be officially recognized by the government and get the government benefits that go with being married. You can buy each other rings, live together, tell people you are married, go to each others family reunions and all the other actions that married couples do together. The only thing you are prevented from getting is the government benefits that go along with being married. 

Including gay marriage as part of the right to privacy would greatly extend current legal understanding of it. I'm not saying it is completely impossible, but it is extremely unlikely that our current Supreme Court is going to do that. It is slightly more likely that they would find it a violation of the equal protection clause, but even that I would consider extremely unlikely. All arguments that these bans are unconstitutional are a stretch and if any of them succeeded it would be a very significant change to constitutional law.   

I don't have much time to reply to the entire post, but precedence has already been determined from 200 years of this country so I'll hit on a little bit now and more later.

This entire country and they way it was formed gives precedence over what is going on with the gays now. People in DC and around the country who are in politics attempt and every given angle to customize this country in to their opinions. As this country has grown, people have stood up and said, "wait a second, I have the right to do..." and changes were made to allow them the same rights as others.

People who support marriage as being between a man and a woman are specifically stating THEIR RELIGION on to others. It is specifically a religious opinion.

YOU CAN NOT FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON OTHERS. YOU CAN NOT FORCE OTHERS TO BELIEVE YOUR OPINION.

This law is unconstitutional for that sole reason.

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

Admittedly I don't have my hands on any polling data, but virtually every atheist I know supports legalizing marijuana and I find that atheists are far more likely to be sympathetic to arguments about legalizing other drugs. I know from my previous association with the republican party that the evangelical right wing is extremely anti-legalization.

Almost every time we have a thread on here about legalization you find significant support for it. If you post the same thread in theist forum you will get very different results. I think it is fair to assume that far more than 1% of the people who support maintaining drug bans do so for religious/moral reasons. Do you have access to information that says otherwise? What reason is there to outlaw drugs other than a personal opinion that they are bad?

Then what is it? It was Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee who went to extreme lengths to get it included in a completely unrelated port security bill. Why? Because he is a religious douche bag that wanted to stop us sinners. 

Is it more sanitary for a man to be topless than a woman? They are laws that simply stem from tradition and religious views of decency. If sanitation is your concern than the law should require people to wear gloves and masks. Your hands are by far the dirtiest part of your body and coughing or a running nose are the most likely ways for you to spread germs.  

It is an opinion about what form our economy should be and legal enforcement of that opinion. Just like every other law. So I guess it is constitutional to pass a law to enforce your morality but not for someone who is Christian? 

Where in the Constitution does it say a law is unconstitutional because many of its supporters are Christian? What law has ever been overturned on those grounds?

Too bad, I was waiting for you to bash my head in with facts. At least one fact would have been nice, or at least an attempt to use the actual text of the Constitution to back up your assertion that the law is unconstitutional.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years

extract:

'Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman." So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It's a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.

This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple". He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

Elaborate tripe is elaborate tripe, no matter the subject. You masturbate over national economics as if it were one person's checkbook and can only follow your utopia script and the past 30 years has done NOTHING but hurt the middle class and poor. It is bad enough you worship your own Wall Street legalized racketeering god, but we are not talking about economics here.

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.

In both this case and your bullshit economics arguments you do the same stupid bullshit, "I can so therefore I am right".

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.

If "might makes right" were a centerfold you'd have the pages stuck together. You are just too stupid to see that when you boil down all your arguments on either subject that is all you advocate.