Summary of Amendment One - Vote May 8 (Graham: home, bill)
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, CaryThe Triangle Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I noticed on the Wikipedia website that North Carolina only has a statute at this time. So I wonder if the case is that it is not in our constitution and is not protected from court change. So the post before yours basically states what may be going on with this. It just protects the citizens of North Carolina from being trampled on by the Federal government.
This is the first that I have heard about the federal courts being a concern. My understanding has been that the concern was that an "activist" STATE judge would rule that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. By amending the constitution to say that marriage was only between a man and woman that would no longer be possible. Furthermore, it is my understanding that rulings at the federal level can overturn state constitutional amendments as seen with Prop 8 in California.
I am wondering if North Carolina's pink on this map will be changed to a dark red after the vote?
Yes, it wuld
Quote:
Our legislature would not put this law on the ballot without a reason, so there has to be a legal reason for needing this in writing.
You MUST be kidding. Politicians put all kinds of things on ballots if they can get away with them. Arizona (I think) is dealing with a law that claims a woman should be legally considered pregnant two weeks before she conceives. Other states are continually trying to pass amendments that deal with illegal immigration or abortion. There are laws on the books of every state that boggle the mind. Most are archaic ("no eating peanuts in church" is an often-cited one), but they are still there and still laws, and the only "reason" they got made into a law was because the particular political climate of the time favored them.
This amendment was introduced into the NC Legislature 7 times before this year by a particulalry zealous group, but was held back 7 times by the Legiaslature at the time. It was only because the Republicans took control of both Houses in 2010 that this was able to get to the floor, where it was rushed through in a session lasting only a couple of hours with no public commentary allowed and under the subterfuge of another bill entirely (trying to keep the news media away).
The irony that ths GOP took control by promising SMALLER and LESS INTRUSIVE governemtn, and then turning around and passing laws such as the one forcing doctors to give ultrasounds to women seeking abortions (removing the choice of both the woman AND the doctor to forego this screening and "counseling") and now they are trying to limit the ways people are legally able to define theri relationships in an extremely Big Brothery manner--all by the party that claims itself the party of "freedom" and "individual liberties"--is mind-boggling. At least just come out and say you want a government that invades doctor's offices and private homes and be honest about it.
Quote:
It's not the federal courts who are "usurping state's rights," it was our Founding Fathers.
Right.
Quote:
This is the first that I have heard about the federal courts being a concern. My understanding has been that the concern was that an "activist" STATE judge would rule that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Yes, this is the "doom and gloom" bell the Pro-Amendment side is continually ringing. As if NC has ever had anything close to an "activist" judge (on the liberal side, that is). Any Federal ruling would possibly trump state law if it is found unConstitutional to the US constitution, which is why "states rights" cannot outlaw abortion (for example), as much as many would like to do so and continue to try.
The biggest travesty of this is not the "Gay marriage" part but that is blocks any possibility of simple civil recognition, which is absolutely no threat to marriage in any way. If the authors of the original bill truly cared only about "the institution of marriage", they should simply have recreated the wording in the statute that already exists, and it would have almost certainly passed. It was the overzealous addition of the vague and omnious "only legal domestic union" wording that has caused so many conservatives, and at least one legislator who originally voted for it, to oppose it on "big government" grounds. While polls show that most NC-ians do not support same-sex marriage, more than half DO support some sort of civil union to strengthen the relatinships of nonmarried couples. The problem is that the amendment is so poorly worded and the sound bites keep calling it the "marriage amendment" when it would more rightfully be called the "civil union amendment", so the middle ground who would disagree with the content if only they understood its ramifications are likely to vote for it unless educated otherwise.
Inviting government into all details of our lives under the guise of a promise to harass only people we don't like reminds me of the couple in the Geico commercial who cower in bed while their "rescue panther" crouches on the dresser and licks his chops....
I am not attacking.....But, is there any reason FOR the amendment that someone believes in? I don't want anyone to answer to feel threatened or whatever. I would like to probe around though. The few that have mentioned they are for it give a small "yes" blurb with no reasoning.
Please don't go after the people only learn about the reasoning. I am curious.
When private companies or the government employers offer free-market benefits to their employees; we, the people, will always end up footing the bill. I don't want to pay the insurance for "friends" of employees of banks or the state or anyone else that chooses to pay the expenses of people that are not legally married. Every now and then, we, the people need laws that keep us from being abused by those that decide we should pay for others lifestyles. So if you want to "shack up" in North Carolina, pay for your "shacking rights" yourself.
My husband was on my private, employer-sponsored insurance as a domestic partner before we got married. The portion my employer paid was assigned to me as income earned and I was taxed on it heavily. Furthermore, it cost me more to have him on my insurance as a domestic partner than it cost to have him on there as a spouse. I don't think you or anyone else was subsidizing my ability to "shack up."
I am not attacking.....But, is there any reason FOR the amendment that someone believes in? I don't want anyone to answer to feel threatened or whatever. I would like to probe around though. The few that have mentioned they are for it give a small "yes" blurb with no reasoning.
Please don't go after the people only learn about the reasoning. I am curious.
I've been curious as well. Yet it seems that the asking of such questions to pro-Amendment 1 advocates is what gets me (and maybe others) in trouble. When this issue first came up in our state, it was so easy for me to say "yep, voting against." So when people say they are for the Amendment, I feel the need to ask. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but with something like this, with what is at stake, I want to learn more, because I want to respect the reasoning they have for believing that what they believe is more important than allowing other people to be free to act on their beliefs.
I often wonder if the Pro-Amendment 1 people understand the consequences to this Amendment passing. The link the OP provided does a very good job of explaining said consequences, yet I believe another is also important: North Carolina, like many other states in these harsh economic times, has a budget problem. North Carolina WILL be sued if this amendment passes, whether it is by organizations or individuals (or both). Do we really want taxpayer dollars to be spent to defend this amendment?
By the way, does anyone know what would happen to this Amendment (if it passes) if DOMA is found to be unconstitutional?
I've been curious as well. Yet it seems that the asking of such questions to pro-Amendment 1 advocates is what gets me (and maybe others) in trouble. When this issue first came up in our state, it was so easy for me to say "yep, voting against." So when people say they are for the Amendment, I feel the need to ask. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but with something like this, with what is at stake, I want to learn more, because I want to respect the reasoning they have for believing that what they believe is more important than allowing other people to be free to act on their beliefs.
I often wonder if the Pro-Amendment 1 people understand the consequences to this Amendment passing. The link the OP provided does a very good job of explaining said consequences, yet I believe another is also important: North Carolina, like many other states in these harsh economic times, has a budget problem. North Carolina WILL be sued if this amendment passes, whether it is by organizations or individuals (or both). Do we really want taxpayer dollars to be spent to defend this amendment?
By the way, does anyone know what would happen to this Amendment (if it passes) if DOMA is found to be unconstitutional?
Im confuse did you mean fail. If it passes all the implications mention in this thread concerning civil unions.
If it fails nothing changes everything remains the same DOMA is the law of this state and it will not change that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
