• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NC's constitutional ban on gay unions

G

Gonad the Barbarian

Lifer
We have a state constitutional amendment up for vote in May that's being sold as a ban on gay marriage. But it bans any legal union between same sex couples. No civil unions, no legal recognition, a complete disenfranchisement of gay couples. It's likely to pass and I'm sorry gay North Carolinians. I post this just to cut through the "redifining marriage" propaganda that's being used to obfuscate the totality of this amendment and flat out hoodwink those folks who might have a legitimate issue with using the term "marriage" but would otherwise be open to civil unions and other legal rights. Which is apparently the majority here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/north-carolina-odds-and-ends.html
But good grief do we still have a long way to go.
 
That's just disgusting. Even when the majority supports ending bigotry, it's hard to overturn a constitutional amendment assuming it's a super majority needed.
 
Well, I can't think of a single reason I'd ever become a resident of North Carolina... even before this proposed ban.

That's fine... they can be stupid and backward down there all they want.
 
zsdersw said:
Well, I can't think of a single reason I'd ever become a resident of North Carolina... even before this proposed ban.

That's fine... they can be stupid and backward down there all they want.
Click to expand...
That is kind of a 'I don't care how many people this may affect as long as it doesn't affect me' attitude. 🙁
 
dank69 said:
That is kind of a 'I don't care how many people this may affect as long as it doesn't affect me' attitude. 🙁
Click to expand...

Well, truth be told, it's not at all up to me. I'd like to think there are enough sensible people in any state, even North Carolina, that would vote down this nonsense, but I cannot get too worked up over a vote that I cannot possibly make or influence.

This is entirely up to residents of North Carolina. I'll gladly criticize them if they choose to pass it.
 
Another reason why marriage rules should be national and not state driven. Or rather, the government should only issue civil unions and get out of the marriage business altogether - and make the civil union rules national.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
I'm sorry gay North Carolinians.

But good grief do we still have a long way to go.
Click to expand...

Why would you be sorry, and why do "we" have a long way to go?

If the majority of the people approve a law, then so be it.


cybrsage said:
Another reason why marriage rules should be national and not state driven. Or rather, the government should only issue civil unions and get out of the marriage business altogether - and make the civil union rules national.
Click to expand...

Its not the government that should be blamed. Its religion that should be blamed.

We would be better served if the rightwing religious zealots got out of the business of making laws for everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Its not the government that should be blamed. Its religion that should be blamed.

We would be better served if the rightwing religious zealots got out of the business of making laws for everyone else.
Click to expand...

In the US, marriage was a religious institution prior to it becoming a legal institution. Therefor, government got itself involved in a religious institution, creating legal framework for it.

Everyone can win if the government removes itself from the religious instutition altogether and only ever issues civil unions. They can be hetersexual civil unions, homosexual civil unions, polygamist civil unions, cross species civil unions, etc. Marriage will then remain in religous hands only, with each religion marrying people according to their rules. Provided their marriage rules match a civil union rule, an authorized religious leader can perform both the marriage and the civil union at the same time. The newly married people will get their religious piece of paper saying they are married and the legal people of paper saying they entered into a civil union.

No downside, all win for everyone. The religious groups can claim they win the war against marriage and the alternate lifestyle groups can claim they win the war against rights.

It is rare we can create a system in which everyone wins...but this is one of those cases.


We then need to federalize it simply due to marriage needing to be portable across state lines.
 
Texashiker said:
Why would you be sorry, and why do "we" have a long way to go?

If the majority of the people approve a law, then so be it.
Click to expand...

The majority DO NOT support what this law does, yet it will likely pass because the mass perception of it is something that it's not. Gay marriage is already illegal here. This will additionally ban same sex civil unions, which a majority approve. And we have a long way to go in not letting stupid bigotry run our politics.
 
Texashiker said:
Why would you be sorry, and why do "we" have a long way to go?

If the majority of the people approve a law, then so be it.




Its not the government that should be blamed. Its religion that should be blamed.

We would be better served if the rightwing religious zealots got out of the business of making laws for everyone else.
Click to expand...
The main reason we have a Bill of Rights is to prevent government from oppressing us. In a democratic representative republic, that oppression is most likely to be of the majority oppressing the minority.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
The majority DO NOT support what this law does, yet it will likely pass because the mass perception of it is something that it's not. Gay marriage is already illegal here. This will additionally ban same sex civil unions, which a majority approve. And we have a long way to go in not letting stupid bigotry run our politics.
Click to expand...

The most likely reason for a constitutional change would be to prevent the law from being ruled unconstitutional.
 
zsdersw said:
Because you agree with the specifics of the amendment or because you don't live in North Carolina?
Click to expand...

Because I think the people of NC should be allowed to decide what their laws should be. Personally I have no problem with civil unions (govt should be out of the business of marriage altogether), but it's up to the people of NC to decide for their state.
 
cybrsage said:
The most likely reason for a constitutional change would be to prevent the law from being ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's the only way to protect against zealous activist judges who want to legislate from the bench. Wish that had been done at the federal level decades ago so there wouldn't be all this nonsense now.
 
PokerGuy said:
It's the only way to protect against zealous activist judges who want to legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...

If an unconstitutional law is passed, it is the duty of the judicial branch to strike it down. That is one of their primary purposes. In this way we are able to keep our constitutional rights intact.

Even if it makes it to the State Constitution, it may still run afoul of the Federal Constitution and therefor be nullified. Much the same as if a state put in a state constitutional amendment saying women and blacks cannot vote in the state for any election. I leave the determination as to if it will violate the federal constitution up to the experts, though.

Wish that had been done at the federal level decades ago so there wouldn't be all this nonsense now.
Click to expand...

I agree that marriage should be a federal issue, it must be portable across state lines.
 
I can see doing this for "marriage", but not civil unions. A civil union carries with it the legal weight of marriage, but not the religious/cultural connotation. This is why we need to change our terminology in government to simply "civil union" instead. To me, marriage is something solely between a man and a woman that goes well beyond the legal realm. I can't think of any reason why homosexual couples should be denied the same legal protections as they currently exist under the term "marriage" though. North Carolina is taking this too far.
 
MovingTarget said:
I can see doing this for "marriage", but not civil unions. A civil union carries with it the legal weight of marriage, but not the religious/cultural connotation. This is why we need to change our terminology in government to simply "civil union" instead. To me, marriage is something solely between a man and a woman that goes well beyond the legal realm. I can't think of any reason why homosexual couples should be denied the same legal protections as they currently exist under the term "marriage" though. North Carolina is taking this too far.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of problem that comes up when you have two different terms to describe the same thing. A specific contract between two opposite sex partners is a marriage; a specific contract between two same sex partners is a civil union. Why? There's no reasonable argument to be made that "marriage" is solely a word that can be used to describe heterosexual couples, nor is there a compelling reason to redefine all heterosexual marriages as civil unions on a national scale. The most reasonable response is to make gay marriage legal, and honestly, when states push through measures like this, it just speeds the whole thing going to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. I just hope the "activist judges" on that body vote correctly.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
The most reasonable response is to make gay marriage legal, and honestly, when states push through measures like this, it just speeds the whole thing going to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. I just hope the "activist judges" on that body vote correctly.
Click to expand...

The most reasonable response is to remove the government from marriage altogether and make the legal institution civil unions only. The religious keep their institutions intact and everyone gets rights and protections.

No one loses but those who demand the word marriage be used even though doing so will create hate.
 
cybrsage said:
The most reasonable response is to remove the government from marriage altogether and make the legal institution civil unions only. The religious keep their institutions intact and everyone gets rights and protections.

No one loses but those who demand the word marriage be used even though doing so will create hate.
Click to expand...

Cybrsage, it isn't often that I agree with you, but this is one of those times.
 
PokerGuy said:
It's the only way to protect against zealous activist judges who want to legislate from the bench. Wish that had been done at the federal level decades ago so there wouldn't be all this nonsense now.
Click to expand...

Are these the same "zealous activist judges" who legislated from the United States Supreme Court bench and overturned the anti-gun law in D.C.? Or are judges only "zealous activist" when they overturn from the bench laws favored by conservatives?
 
Atomic Playboy said:
This is exactly the kind of problem that comes up when you have two different terms to describe the same thing. A specific contract between two opposite sex partners is a marriage; a specific contract between two same sex partners is a civil union. Why? There's no reasonable argument to be made that "marriage" is solely a word that can be used to describe heterosexual couples, nor is there a compelling reason to redefine all heterosexual marriages as civil unions on a national scale. The most reasonable response is to make gay marriage legal, and honestly, when states push through measures like this, it just speeds the whole thing going to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. I just hope the "activist judges" on that body vote correctly.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm heartily tired of this whole matter and more than ready for it to go away. If we define the same thing in two different terms, the struggle simply continues as one side pushes for "marriage" rights by name and the other pushes for special rights for "real" marriage.

If the best we can do is to define gay marriage as civil unions, so be it. But the debate won't end, there are too many activists on both sides. And separate but equal is never really equal; otherwise it wouldn't need to be separate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top