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

Originally Posted by darth omar

Bravo. You’ve got it.

The .1% they don’t get has nothing to do with rights since civil unions give exactly the same rights as legal marriage. And to get that extra .1% they are willing to gamble with the traditional definition of marriage to the extent it would allow polygamy and/or other non-traditional marriages to be legalized.

So you'd be OK with polygamous civil unions?

My feelings on this is that "traditional marriage" is not doing very well anyway. And North Carolina, as well as 49 other states have done away with "traditional marriage" a long time ago, with non traditional divorce laws, which redefined marriage as something other than "traditional marriage". So "traditional marriage" is an option that less than half of the people getting married opt for.

And when something doesn't work, you look for a replacement.
I like same sex marriage because it opens the door to rethinking the legal code that tries to stabilize human relationships.
The extended family is gone, in America anyways, there may be examples, but it's extinct for practical purposes.

What we need is some code that will bind people together into a kind of "non traditional family" that can provide much of the social services that were provided by the extended family.
Or we can just have the government provide all those social services. That to me is the real choice.
Society can reorganize to make the social services we require as humans something that get provided by a social structure other than government, or we can rely on government to provide social services.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

...It is recognized by six... and within 20 years will be recognized in all 50. Deal with that.

No, that is just your hope. The fact is that 30 states have banned it.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Perhaps if it were a special privilege granted above and beyond what other citizens enjoy... you might be correct. But what we are discussing here is a 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law. And yes... in order to deny that right... the government would have to prove that denial benefitted society to a greater degree than the harm done to those who are disenfranchised.

Again thus is simply your uneducated interpretation of the US Constitution, nothing more. The fact is that 30 states have used language similar to North Carolina with no challenge from wealthy gay advocates, like the group that gave The Obama 15 million dollars for flip-flopping on the issue.

Originally Posted by goober

...
My feelings on this is that "traditional marriage" is not doing very well anyway. ....

So your solution is to weaken it further.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

Actually, you assume homophobia because you have no argument otherwise. Or to distract from the fact that my argument is a tall, impenetrable wall that you can't make a foot-hold on never mind scale, so you flail about at the bottom, looking up, screaming, whining and crying like a school girl who just got her cell phone taken away.

I concede. Your circular arguments and references to immorality, bestiality, and pedophilia are too powerful for my puny attempts at rational discussion. You win. For now. But the tide has turned so gloat while you can.

Originally Posted by timj219

I concede. Your circular arguments and references to immorality, bestiality, and pedophilia are too powerful for my puny attempts at rational discussion. You win. For now. But the tide has turned so gloat while you can.

I humbly accept a win, along with the win of the good people of North Carolina in this wave of traditionalism flowing across America.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

No, that is just your hope. The fact is that 30 states have banned it.

Irreversibly?

Wow!

How'd they do that?!

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

So your solution is to weaken it further.

If you wanted to strengthen marriage, why would you spend all that energy on a constitutional amendment with zero practical effect when you could have been doing something real, like making divorce a difficult process, requiring grounds for divorce, putting in strong penalties for adultery, instead you wage a battle that changes nothing, to defend "traditional marriage", which is severely weakened by current North Carolina laws that you ignore, to wage a battle for heading off polygamy, that isn't even on the table.

The real reason for this fiasco is that it's political theatre, a pageant, if you will, to set the stage for the Democratic Convention, and I'm sure that you don't mind being used in the effort to lower taxes even further for the wealthy, and maybe finance it with a small tax increase on the middle class, and the gutting of social services....

Originally Posted by goober

If you wanted to strengthen marriage, why would you spend all that energy on a constitutional amendment with zero practical effect...

1. Prove that it has zero practical effect; common sense dictates that it will have the opposite effect.
2. You failed to address my point to you: why do you seek to weaken traditional marriage further?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Irreversibly?

Wow!

How'd they do that?!

Who claimed that? A Constitutional Amendment can be reversed using the same process that created it.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

Who claimed that? A Constitutional Amendment can be reversed using the same process that created it.

My point exactly. If it can be banned, it can be unbanned. And while that would be exceedingly difficult if it were an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the states are generally easier. Heck, here in California it takes just a simple majority to change our Constitution... which is ridiculous... but what it means is that even if Prop. 8 (which changed the state constitution to limit marriage to men and women) is upheld by the courts (and that looks doubtful) it'll just take a simple majority to change it back.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

My point exactly. If it can be banned, it can be unbanned. And while that would be exceedingly difficult if it were an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the states are generally easier. Heck, here in California it takes just a simple majority to change our Constitution... which is ridiculous... but what it means is that even if Prop. 8 (which changed the state constitution to limit marriage to men and women) is upheld by the courts (and that looks doubtful) it'll just take a simple majority to change it back.

If 60% of North Carolinians voted for gay marriage then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The entire point of this Amendment is that it eliminates the possibility of a single judge negating the statute, pulling a back-door on the will of the legislature and governor, like what happened in Massachusetts. Instead we have the will of the people speaking directly, eliminating the possibility of judicial fiat.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

What does race have to do with anything? He asked about the Equal Protection Clause, not the Civil Rights Act.

Thats what it is for....it isnt for John and Joe can can have a marriage recognized by a state. Fact is the majority of people do NOT want to normalize homosexuality.......