Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[elder999]

Because as a free person with a vote your free to pick and choose whatwver you want. Its your vote if you want to listen to the taco bell dog its your right. If you want to listen to the bible its your right. If you just want to piss off a liberal and thats your only reason to vote again its your right and nobody has to defend their vote. Its their vote to cast as they see fit.

It's not fit-or just-that they get to vote on this at all.

 

[ballen0351]

If your pro gay marriage then you need to do a better job making your case. Calling people stupid rednecks is not going to win alot of converts. There have been some very good pro gay marriage arguments on MT made by others in other threads on this topic in rhe past. They need to make better arguments to the people for their cause. They failed fo back to the drawing board and try again

 

[ballen0351]

It's not fit-or just-that they get to vote on this at all.

I agree with you. I dont think the govt should have any say in who or what i marry. We gave them that right and now were stuck with the outcome. It should be between me my spouse and my god. Not a govt paper pusher at the county court house.

 

[MSTCNC]

But, what I'm saying is... be an INFORMED voter...

That's a majority of the issue with the NC legislation. Exit polls are showing that those who voted for the amendment, had no idea it included domestic and civil unions as well as same-sex unions...

My issue is NOT that people passed this because they hate the gay community... it's that they did so UNINFORMED... and, having done so, they took rights away from an even bigger portion of the population... simply because they thought they'd "fix those queer folk"...

Gay as a blade... or straight as an arrow... if you're not a man and a woman who where married in a religeous institution... you aren't married... and you have no rights...

Personally? I have friends on both side of the "normal" line... and this affects them all... and I think it's a horrible thing...

That's all I have to say really... I appreciate everyone weighing in...

{salute}

 

[ballen0351]

Like i said more then half the people in this country dont care they are not informed about politics they votw for the D or R and dont even know the names. My own mother thought Obama was the republican in 08. Thankfully shes not a citizen so she cant vote. You can claim ignorance on almost every topic thats voted on. That goes back to the supoorters of the bill need to do a better job getting the information out there. You can only blame the pro gay people for this bill they didnt do a good enough job spreading the word

 

[WC_lun]

States cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional. Seems to me that keeping a person from having equal civil rights is indeed a breach of the constitution, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with thier life style. As a nation we do revoke some people's civil rights, but there must be a cause to do so, say the person is a felon. Archaic laws on homosexuality, much like cross racial relationships, have either been struck down or no longer enforced. That means we now have a segment of the population that do not have equal civil rights for reasons that are not part of law.

Then there is the issue of people forcing thier religious beliefs on others. If Muslims all moved to one state and voted in Shariah law, how would that fly? How about if Jews voted in a law that everyone had to eat koscher? Or even if the right wing Christians voted in a law outlawing dancing or alcohol? Liberals outlawing guns? Rightly there would be an uproar about religious and personal freedoms. However, because the target of these so called marriage laws are considered the other, it is okay to do so, because "its the will of the people." It is nonsense and it is not right. Remember how easy it is to justify outlawing someone else's civil rights when yours become under attack.

 

[ballen0351]

Thats all fine and good but there is no right to be married. Its not in the constitution. So its left up to the states constitution and NC just changed there constitution.

 

[elder999]

Thats all fine and good but there is no right to be married. Its not in the constitution. So its left up to the states constitution and NC just changed there constitution.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.Article IV, section 1, U.S. Constitution

..the so-called "Full faith and credit clause."

Which basically means if Rita (that's the wife) and I get married in NM (we did!) then we're married in Nevada, Utah, New York, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, and, yes, even in North Carolina-though we wouldn't have had a legally recognized marriage there prior to 1967, not in the least because I was only 7 and she was only 3, but because she's remarkably Nordic and blonde in appearance, and I'm clearly not. :lol: It's because of the full faith and credit clause that the SCOTUS decided that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional-in fact, the language of that decision is telling:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It's legal for two dudes to get married in Vermont. It's unconstitutional for any other state not to recognize it. Any law or constitutional amendment enacted in any state against recognizing it is a violation of Article IV, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and, by definition, unconstitutional-which is why the current SCOTUS will never hear such a case-it's too compellingly clear, and to hear the argument is to agree with it.

 

[ballen0351]

And at somepoint i expect the SCOTUS to take this topic on and rule just as they have in other marriage laws. But until then its still up to the state. When they do rule it will be settled but not until then we will have many different laws regarding this topic. I didnt read the entire NC law as it was passed but it may recognize marriages in other states juat not allow it to happen in NC itself . I honeslty dont really care about the law itself it has no effect on me i dont live in the state. Its their state they can do whatever they want. We already have gay marrage here so if your gay in NC drive 2 states north and get hitched. We can use the tourism money.

 

[ballen0351]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199 , 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C

States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

 

[ballen0351]

As of May 2012, with the passing of North Carolina's gay marriage ban, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 30 via the state's constitution.

Looks like its outlawed in most states.

 

[elder999]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199 , 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C

States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

And it's pretty clearly also a violation of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution-in fact, it's a direct contravention of it.

 

[ballen0351]

Its only a violation when its ruled on and its 16 years old and has never been taken beforw the high court. Maybe someone needs to fight it.

 

[ballen0351]

I think the feds are stepping back on alot of hot button issues and letting the states deal with it. Just like legal marijuana its still illegal in the federal system to possess marijuana but many states have made it legal and the feds havent tried to stop it. Same thing here in reverse. Obama wants same sex marriage but he wont try to fight for it in court or at least until his next term and he wont need to worry about votes.
Its pretty clear most people dont want same sex marriage it its illegal in over 40 states so he wont touch it until he either wins or looses in Nov.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Its only a violation when its ruled on and its 16 years old and has never been taken beforw the high court. Maybe someone needs to fight it.

We need a few rich gays to tackle that one. Arguing in the SC isn't for poor people like me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think the feds are stepping back on alot of hot button issues and letting the states deal with it. Just like legal marijuana its still illegal in the federal system to possess marijuana but many states have made it legal and the feds havent tried to stop it. Same thing here in reverse. Obama wants same sex marriage but he wont try to fight for it in court or at least until his next term and he wont need to worry about votes.
Its pretty clear most people dont want same sex marriage it its illegal in over 40 states so he wont touch it until he either wins or looses in Nov.

Surveys put it at about even nationally. Most of the votes such as California's Prop 8 were close.

Of course, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[ballen0351]

We need a few rich gays to tackle that one. Arguing in the SC isn't for poor people like me.

Im sure if it was as cut and dry as some say the ACLU would havr been all over this years ago

 

[elder999]

Im sure if it was as cut and dry as some say the ACLU would havr been all over this years ago

Several cases are s....l....ooooww.....ly working their way there-by all appearances, courts are downright reluctant to hear them, but one or more of them ought to make it to the SCOTUS by 2013 at the earliest-that would be California's Prop 8, btw.....

 

[elder999]

And this minister, in Greensboro, North Carolina, pretty much points out all the stupid....

 

[ballen0351]

Several cases are s....l....ooooww.....ly working their way there-by all appearances, courts are downright reluctant to hear them, but one or more of them ought to make it to the SCOTUS by 2013 at the earliest-that would be California's Prop 8, btw.....

Im just suprised the defense of marriage act wasnt challenged 15 years ago. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.