Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
What I find very interesting is that many of you are hanging your hat on this, when in fact ZERO legal interpretations have been issued in this regard. All you've got are a few talking head "legal analysts" and "legal scholars" shooting off at the lip in the days leading up to the actual vote. I know you'd love for heterosexuals to suffer from this, but the fact of the matter is that here's no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will actually happen.
Per the exact wording:
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
Which means that cohabitating couples are not domestic legal unions and are neither valid nor recognized by the state.
Pretty simple logic.
Of course, there's nothing to stop a private company from providing benefits to their employees that include domestic partners (of either gender), but nobody except married couples will have any benefits, protections, etc from the state itself.
Given the recent vote in North Carolina where the "sanctity of marriage" card was played to incorporate discrimination into the state constitution, I propose a new constitutional amendment be introduced in every state that has voted in a similar way.
I doubt the NC constitutional amendment can withstand legal challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. Then again, the Court is a right-leaning activist court ... and I may have misjudged the outcome.
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
Which means that cohabitating couples are not domestic legal unions and are neither valid nor recognized by the state.
Pretty simple logic.
Not only is it "pretty simple logic"....it's TOO simple. You're trying to extrapolate a legal interpretation from this amendment that simply does not exist.
Yey!!!! The myth of American democracy continues!!!! Unequal rights for some!!!!
I think you raise an OUTSTANDING point here! You see, this idea of an "American Democracy" is a myth! A complete fraud! America never was a "democracy" ... designed from the ground up as a "Constitutional Republic" which democratically elects it's representatives. There is a huge difference. In fact, the founding fathers abhorred democracy, and Benjamin Franklin once defined democracy as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper".
And you know ... I've preached endlessly to you cinder block heads on the left about the disastrous idea your efforts have been to transform America into this "Socialist Democracy" for which the left never ceases to promote. But now that you have a taste of it .... don't whine and moan just because you don't like the decisions of the democratic majority. You got what you wished for .... so sad, too bad.
One would think that when confronted with such stark reality, the left might get a clue ... but still no brain activity on the intellectual monitor ... a total flat line.
You see, this is the problem with "big government", and it being allowed to get involved in things it has no legitimate business in. But you all have continued to demand exactly that ... big government, with the preeminent authority to dictate and control every aspect of private life. But that is a double edged sword, and cuts both ways.
Government has no business deciding who should be allowed to marry whom ... it's none of "government's" business, and should be up to the two individuals involved. It should be their decision, and only theirs. But the problem is .... special benefits and special accommodations available to married people ... that's the big kicker. You see, we should have never allowed this socialist thievery mindset to infect the body politic that allows government to steal people's money and give it to someone else as a special benefit or perk. That's where the problem began. If that situation didn't exist ... if government stayed out of the deal altogether ... and nobody else's money was being stolen to provide some perk for two people to marry ... well, there would be no issue. You would then be free to go to whatever church or justice of the peace of your choosing, and tie that twisted knot in whatever shape your heart desired. But when the result of that union affects everyone else (where a portion of their tax dollars is being allocated), they DO get to have a say in the matter .... that's democracy in action!
Now, the inexplicable part of this dreadful situation is how such a small minority pushes for this type of democratic tyranny when they indeed make up such small minority, having no chance to prevail in a totally democratic process. It really is quite ignorant.
The smarter thing for leftists to do would be to strenuously promote and defend individual liberty free of government (and thereby majority dictate) control of private lives and decisions. Particularly given the multitude of small factions of special interests always demanding the upper hand, and always jockeying for position in front to gain access to those government benefits.
And these factions of leftist special interests really don't give a crap about the other, unless teaming up serves some selfish purpose. And that's the mindset of the left ... singularly focused on their own self interests only. You all don't care about what is best for everyone concerned, you only care about what is benefiting you individually ... and that is a very short sighted and often self defeating position.
When you feel totally justified in intruding into other people's lives and telling them how they must live, act and behave ... well, when the shoe is on the other foot ... don't complain when it kicks you in the arse.
You wanted it ... you got it. But you never will "get it" , will ya? Probably not.
Not only is it "pretty simple logic"....it's TOO simple. You're trying to extrapolate a legal interpretation from this amendment that simply does not exist.
There's nothing to interpret or extrapolate. The bill is cut and dry at stating that marriage is the only union that the state will recognize. The part about it emphasizing/limiting what a marriage is (one man, one woman)? That was already state law.
This bill doesn't state "Marriage in this state is only between one man and one woman". The bill states that "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
Civil partnerships of heterosexual or homosexual nature are not marriages and thus cannot be considered domestic legal unions. Civil partnerships of heterosexual or homosexual nature are not marriages and thus are no longer recognized by the state of North Carolina.
Gay marriage legitimizes homosexual sex within the confines of a states' boundaries. What's being rejected here is not marriage, it's the concept that States should not sanction or bestow benefits to perversity.
Please educate yourself. This amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage. How many times does that need to be repeated before you folks get it?
Once again - something has to be "harmful" directly to an individual for it to not be condoned. What about morality, the institution of the family, and the definition of marriage? Why do you want to redefine the foundation of human society?
Because it is unjust and denies a group of people a civil right. You don't have to light a particular lifestyle but you have absolutely no right to deny people their civil rights based on YOUR religious beliefs.
Quote:
This is the harm - homosexual relationships are not natural or moral.
The fact of the matter is that homosexual behaviors exists amongst various animal species. It is therefore "natural" for at least some members of various species to be homosexual.
The whole "natural" arguments is suspect at best. Is it natural for people to live in human bondage? It is "natural" for women to be denied their civil rights or fair and equal treatment under the law? Yet both of these conditions have existed in human societies.
Quote:
They do not deserve the legitamcy that comes with being called marriages. Civil unions can be formed - and don't come back with the retort that amendment 1 doesn't allow them - I have already stated many times that I disagree with that portion of the bill. You are trying to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions. They are not equal to heterosexual unions and never will be.
The whole "They are not equal to heterosexual unions and never will be" will be the petard by which the prohibitions to same sex marriage will eventually be hung by.
We've tried separate but equal which is REALLY separate and unequal in this country before IT DOES NOT WORK!
Ah, yet another reason why, in the days following my and my peers' graduations, we have zero desire to more to the South. Between gay marriage bans, allowing creationism to be taught in the classroom, "personhood" bills that want to legally call acorns trees, forced vaginal ultrasounds, and just the over all religious zealots taking the whole region back, I think I rather just move on to more progressive regions until the South as a whole decides to join in on the 21st century. Pity b/c there are lovely pockets in the South where people haven't been taken over by religious dogma, areas that are progressive and forward thinking, even in N.C. Even California, w/ its Prop 8 issues (issues that are only issues b/c of the religious zealots) and other problems, has shown itself to be more progressive in this fight for equal rights for all.
Once again, letting the majority vote on the rights of a minority never really works and I shudder to think where the civil rights movement would have ended up if whites had been allowed to vote on the rights of blacks...
Hence my decision to leave the South a couple of years ago. It's a decision I'm very happy with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
