Thread: Three days until North Carolina Amendment One and Marriage Protected

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

2. That is a bogus argument because you are not comparing apples to apples but apples to certain grapes. You are comparing ALL homosexual couples to SOME heterosexual couples for the explicit purpose of appeasing the homosexual agenda. Doing so adds burden to the State. I would only be in favor if it could be financially shown that the cost of dividing traditional marriage couples is worth saving the entitlements given.

I am comparing them because you have stipulated child bearing as the state interest that justifies withholding these civil protections from homosexuals. If child bearing was really the interest then only child bearing couples would qualify. And you ignored the point that increasing the population is no longer a concern for us.
You cannot claim child bearing if child bearing is no longer a state interest and if only some childless couples are excluded. Your desire to exclude childless homosexuals and include childless heterosexuals makes it clear the real difference is sexual orientation - not child bearing ability.

Originally Posted by timj219

In the absence of an alternate rational explanation it's difficult to believe you would expend so much energy in an effort to deny rights to a group if you feel no animus towards them.

That coin has two sides, if you want to play that game.

What does it say about those who expend so much energy in the other direction?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

The box has already been opened, the lid torn off and burned. Gay people are already married... both legally and not.

But as long as you mention it.... what are these consequences you keep speaking of? Can you show how these consequences have amanifested in areas where gay marriage has already been legal for several years?

being married does not mean they will be recognized as such. Because other states do not have to recognize marriages from other states.

Originally Posted by timj219

I am comparing them because you have stipulated child bearing as the state interest that justifies withholding these civil protections from homosexuals. If child bearing was really the interest then only child bearing couples would qualify.

That is an invalid comparison as ALL homosexuals do not reproduce while only SOME heterosexuals couples do not. You keep wanting to compare unequal things as equal when they are not and that is a fatal flaw in the argument.

Having said that, I also am in favor of not not rescinding legal marriage for non-procreating couples but eliminating legal marriage altogether. In other words, it is fine with me to reduce entitlements due to your pretext not expand them.

I thought we are all humans.

Please do tell me more how about you're such a freedom loving person.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

I thought we are all humans.

People ought not be punished or rewarded for being but for doing.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Please do tell me more how about you're such a freedom loving person.

Freedom is less government entitlements not more.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Before we leave off on another tangent, it bears mentioning that civil unions do in fact satisfy the objection that is based on gay rights. So it follows that there is no constitutional remedy for any grievances they have downstream from that, since the constitution only concerns itself with rights and not whether any group feels less included than another.

Do we agree on that much?

Now to the question: the main unintended consequence of legal gay marriage is that it opens the legal door for other types of non-traditional marriage. If gays have the right to legal marriage polygamists have the identical right. There’s no way around it.

In that sense, legalizing gay marriage is a social experiment in which no one really knows the outcome. Personal opinions run the gamut where some people think it’s no biggie and others think just the opposite---and everything in between. Opinion though, is the key concept.

One of the reasons we have a legislative branch is to settle such disputes. Furthermore, one of the reasons we have states is because they were intended to be ‘laboratories’ where these sorts of legal/social experiments should occur. This has the advantage of states learning from one another’s errors or copycatting the good stuff---whatever the case may be.

In contrast, when the federal government makes a mistake---all 50 of them have to live with it. So clearly, however it is resolved, this issue belongs to the state legislatures.

The slippery slope arguement was used when anti-miscegenation laws were overturned too. Blacks and white marrying? What's next? Marrying your dog? But let me ask you this... when the courts declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional... do you think that the courts granted a new right? Or that that right was there all along but finally recognized by the courts? You say you do believe that gay families should have all of the same legal protections that other families already enjoy... but in the next breath fear actually giving those rights because of other things that may happen in the future? Would that have been a valid reason to allow anti-miscegenation laws to remain on the books? Because one day they might open the door for other rights you don't want to see recognized?

You say this issue belongs to the states. But let me ask you this... if you leave this up to the individual states... how in the world will uniformity ever be acheived? Marriages are fully recognized in all 50 states no matter which state it is performed in. Will we be able to say the same for civil unions? Do you think we can depend upon all 50 states to actually craft civil union laws that provide ALL of the protections that marriage provide?

Originally Posted by UniquePOV

The slippery slope arguement was used when anti-miscegenation laws were overturned too. Blacks and white marrying? What's next? Marrying your dog? But let me ask you this... when the courts declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional... do you think that the courts granted a new right? Or that that right was there all along but finally recognized by the courts? You say you do believe that gay families should have all of the same legal protections that other families already enjoy... but in the next breath fear actually giving those rights because of other things that may happen in the future? Would that have been a valid reason to allow anti-miscegenation laws to remain on the books? Because one day they might open the door for other rights you don't want to see recognized?

Miscegenation laws are only weakly analogous to legalizing gay marriage. For one thing, blacks were utterly prevented from marrying whites or visa versa whereas gays get married now---the only issue is whether we ought to legally sanction them. The depriving of rights ‘suffered’ by gays is practically theoretical in comparison.

Secondly, miscegenation laws had nothing to do with how marriage ought to be defined; rather, they existed out of concern for racial purity. In theory, a miscegenation proponent could accept mixed gay marriage because there is absolutely no chance a child would be born out of it.

In other words, under miscegenation, marriage was a secondary concern to the mixed offspring that would be born out of them.

I also object to your criticism of my civil union stance. Properly formulated civil union laws GIVE equal rights to gay marriages in the form of equal protection under the law. I’m quite confident that folks who desired mixed unions would have been quite satisfied with a similar arrangement in the miscegenation era. Why wouldn’t they be?

Clearly, this is not about gay rights, per se; it’s about using the power of government to grant moral legitimacy to gay marriage---that is not the proper role of government.

Regarding the slippery slope: when you assert that gays have a pre-existing right to legal marriage this is a tacit concession that polygamists have the identical right. Then in the same breath you say it doesn’t matter.

Well, it matters to some of us. The fact of the matter is this: there is a legitimate objection to legal gay marriage that has nothing to do with ‘homophobia’ or bigotry. And that objection is born out of concern for the institution of marriage, itself. And it is for these sorts of reasons that this issue belongs in front of state legislatures so everyone can have a say in it via their elected representatives.

Originally Posted by UniquePOV

You say this issue belongs to the states. But let me ask you this... if you leave this up to the individual states... how in the world will uniformity ever be acheived? Marriages are fully recognized in all 50 states no matter which state it is performed in. Will we be able to say the same for civil unions? Do you think we can depend upon all 50 states to actually craft civil union laws that provide ALL of the protections that marriage provide?

President Obama, the Harvard trained constitutional scholar, agrees with me that this ought to be left to the states. It took him a while to evolve to my position but at least he got there.

I suspect what you are asking for isn’t legal uniformity---but moral conformity. The fact some laws aren’t uniform from state to state is a consequence of states-rights---it comes with the territory.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Clearly, this is not about gay rights, per se; it’s about using the power of government to grant moral legitimacy to gay marriage---that is not the proper role of government.

Exactly!

It is funny to me how multiculturalists oppose the use of government to prevent the kind of culture they want but have no qualms with using government to create the kind of culture they want. Whether it is contraception, abortion or gay marriage, the trend is the same; they want to now be paid for what used to be a crime to do.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I suspect what you are asking for isn’t legal uniformity---but moral conformity. The fact some laws aren’t uniform from state to state is a consequence of states-rights---it comes with the territory.

The territory is the principles of federalism, of limited government, that all but specific powers are reserved to the States. This territory is not part of the indoctrination people get in government run schools.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Miscegenation laws are only weakly analogous to legalizing gay marriage. For one thing, blacks were utterly prevented from marrying whites or visa versa whereas gays get married now---the only issue is whether we ought to legally sanction them. The depriving of rights ‘suffered’ by gays is practically theoretical in comparison.

Secondly, miscegenation laws had nothing to do with how marriage ought to be defined; rather, they existed out of concern for racial purity. In theory, a miscegenation proponent could accept mixed gay marriage because there is absolutely no chance a child would be born out of it.

In other words, under miscegenation, marriage was a secondary concern to the mixed offspring that would be born out of them.

I also object to your criticism of my civil union stance. Properly formulated civil union laws GIVE equal rights to gay marriages in the form of equal protection under the law. I’m quite confident that folks who desired mixed unions would have been quite satisfied with a similar arrangement in the miscegenation era. Why wouldn’t they be?

Clearly, this is not about gay rights, per se; it’s about using the power of government to grant moral legitimacy to gay marriage---that is not the proper role of government.

Regarding the slippery slope: when you assert that gays have a pre-existing right to legal marriage this is a tacit concession that polygamists have the identical right. Then in the same breath you say it doesn’t matter.

Well, it matters to some of us. The fact of the matter is this: there is a legitimate objection to legal gay marriage that has nothing to do with ‘homophobia’ or bigotry. And that objection is born out of concern for the institution of marriage, itself. And it is for these sorts of reasons that this issue belongs in front of state legislatures so everyone can have a say in it via their elected representatives.



President Obama, the Harvard trained constitutional scholar, agrees with me that this ought to be left to the states. It took him a while to evolve to my position but at least he got there.

I suspect what you are asking for isn’t legal uniformity---but moral conformity. The fact some laws aren’t uniform from state to state is a consequence of states-rights---it comes with the territory.

The civil union thing is just a distraction, if you have really equal civil unions, they are no different that marriage, and there is the problem that the only way to keep up equality with all the laws on marriage is to make marriage and civil union equivalent terms.

But that isn't what's happening, there are a few civil union states, a few marriage states, and something like 30 states that recognize neither.
Civil unions only work as a preemptive move, you head off the marriage equality crowd with a civil union law, early in the game.
But for 30 states , it's just "NO, NO, NO", at least for now. The demographics of the issue are overwhelming, this is one of the biggest, fastest changes in public opinion since polling began.
Young people, even in North Carolina, are overwhelmingly in favor of same sex marriage. And every cohort, as they age, is growing more favorable to same sex marriage.
No cohort, no age group is growing more opposed.
And there's a reason for this, and that is the mythology that drives this country is changing, the old Christian myths aren't suited for this age, they don't fit the science of today, they are obviously just stories, that never happened for real, and the "magic" behind them is losing it's hold on the American people. The new mythology of America is coming from the media, and the people that create that media are far more gay friendly and far less homophobic than the public at large. Not because of some evil agenda, but because the old myths don't stand up on their own. If anything this country needs a new myth to drive us, because we really haven't replaced our core myths yet, even as they have lost nearly all their power.

Our entire culture is changing, evolving, where it lands doesn't matter, because we're all dead long before it plays itself out. The only thing we can do is step back, and marvel at the process.

Originally Posted by goober

The civil union thing is just a distraction, if you have really equal civil unions

There you go again! Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. A union that CAN produce offspring is NOT EQUAL to a union that CANNOT produce offspring.

A marriage has meant something for 2,000 years. "Gay marriage" is not a subset of marriage but an attempt to use words to destroy a concept that is vital to the survival of the culture if not the species. This is where we are in the 21st century: the collectivists have pushed us to denigrate our very constitutions to be dictionaries, where Amendment are added to define words. It is an outrage! It is an unequivocal symbol of the decline of Western Civilization.

Claims that other countries do it is equally an outrage. Since when does America compare itself to other countries? These other countries are - in fact - jumping off a bridge (a fiscal and birth rate bridge) - and it is argued we ought to jump off the same bridge! No, I say. Here is the line. You have come this far and will not come any farther. Or it is time for the Union to dissolve. It is things like this that convince me our civilization is spiraling in decline to inevitable collapse like all the ones that came before us.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

There you go again! Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. A union that CAN produce offspring is NOT EQUAL to a union that CANNOT produce offspring.

A marriage has meant something for 2,000 years. "Gay marriage" is not a subset of marriage but an attempt to use words to destroy a concept that is vital to the survival of the culture if not the species. This is where we are in the 21st century: the collectivists have pushed us to denigrate our very constitutions to be dictionaries, where Amendment are added to define words. It is an outrage! It is an unequivocal symbol of the decline of Western Civilization.

Claims that other countries do it is equally an outrage. Since when does America compare itself to other countries? These other countries are - in fact - jumping off a bridge (a fiscal and birth rate bridge) - and it is argued we ought to jump off the same bridge! No, I say. Here is the line. You have come this far and will not come any farther. Or it is time for the Union to dissolve. It is things like this that convince me our civilization is spiraling in decline to inevitable collapse like all the ones that came before us.

There you go again under some illusion that gays and lesbians being allowed to marry in the eyes of the state will have any impact at all on heterosexuals. Some arms flailing in the air nonsense that all of a sudden there will be some mass exodus of people that were once straight to all of a sudden cause the end of the species. Homosexuality has been around for centuries and yet we have still figured out a way to over populate the planet. There is no decline of the "Western Civilization" (whatever the hell that is) as gays and lesbians have been did not start yesterday, thier relationships did not start yesterday, their unions did not start yesterday, and in some states their marriages now exists. And will all that we seem to have plenty of population running around spouting the same nonsense you are. Tell us more about thie birth rate bridge that we will jump off of, just because of allowing the state to see relations that already exist.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

There you go again under some illusion that gays and lesbians being allowed to marry in the eyes of the state will have any impact at all on heterosexuals.

That is not what I am saying at all. The thinking that UNEQUAL things ought to be treated EQUALLY is.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Homosexuality has been around for centuries and yet we have still figured out a way to over populate the planet.

So hasn't murder and rape but we aren't making that legal.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

There is no decline of the "Western Civilization"

What measure are you using to come to that conclusion? The West is on the decline. The East and Mideast is on the ascendency, e.g., wealth, tallest buildings, growing populations.