North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Yes, and Jesus said that we should judge righteously. Jesus also never judged against homosexuality, so if we judge against homosexuality, we are not judging righteously, according to Jesus.

The entire Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is God, so yeah, He did speak against it. Prohibitions against that in the OT and NT. He stated that He came to fulfill the law, not do away with it. It's listed as one sinful behavior, in a list of several. Of course, like any sin, it's forgivable. As for judging, it would be wrong to practice a particular sin, yet tell others they were wrong for doing so.

So, Jesus came to fulfill ALL the laws of Leviticus? Even the ones about no haircuts, no shellfish, no wearing clothing with multiple fabrics, etc., etc.? Jesus sure spoke a different tune than the Old Testament God. Multiple personality disorder???

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by nenothtu

 

hey there nenothtu, hope this helps a little.
start with the "bold" words in the quote you linked. "only valid legal union"
(or something like that)
you, feeble-minded ?? not on your worst day

Aw shucks - you'll make me blush with talk like that! My take on it was with the same concentration - but with a stress on "legal". The only advantage I can see is in matters of money, since it's a State contract enforcement. If my sweetie took up with me for the money, then boy did SHE pick the wrong target!

but since you asked nice, unmarried couples (both hetero & homo) share everything from finances to family, property to children and success to abuse.
unmarried hetero couples specifically, will have difficulty obtaining everything from loans to protection orders, emergent care to visitations, custody to co-habitation.
surely this is not surprising to you ?

I live in North Carolina, and have had to deal with some of these issues in both matrimonial states - married and unmarried. My second marriage (yeah, I know, a fella ought not to collect such things, as they get expensive when they break) was fairly tempestuous. One does not need a "valid legal union" to obtain or enforce for example, a domestic violence order. I had to take one out on my second wife - she was trying to push me into hitting her, and I never would, but when she hit ME, I figured enough was enough, and took a 50B out on her rather than retaliate in kind. I KNOW who would have lost had I retaliated in kind. The DA couldn't quite comprehend that I didn't have her put out of the house, and was in a quandary as to how that was going to work. I told him to pursue the order - I'd handle the rooming arrangements.

I married her because we were having a child, and she was making all sorts of threats that (in her mind) were dire to the unmarried. When the time came for the birthing, it was my turn to find out that married or not, she could prevent me from attending with just a word. When they came to throw me out, I simply said. "OK, you all seem to have the upper legal hand, so it's a good thing we're about to do this in a hospital, because that means help for you ain't far away." They figured out I was ready to throw down, and we resolved it peacefully. I stayed, but it wasn't because of the law. The law said I had to go, even though we were married at the time. that son will soon be 18, and has turned out to be a fine young man.

She later divorced me, which I didn't contest. We went that route because there was no significant advantage to being married any more. When she got cancer, right up until she died, we maintained ties, and I did anything I needed to, with or without the backing of law. There are ways to handle the situation without benefit of marriage. That was six years ago, next month, and the relationship wasn't "legally recognized", but we made it happen any how. She made it plain who was authorized to make decisions on her behalf, and I dared anyone to try to contest it. The only thing I can think of that might have become an issue was insurance, but she had her own, and I didn't want any - still don't - so it turned out not to be a problem.

i didn't check if NC acknowledged "common law" marriages previously (my state does) but the amendment wording prevents any future acknowledgement or "rights" previously associated with said union.

They do. It's recognized after 7 years of continual cohabitation. I'm not sure which "rights" you are contending will go unrecognized, but after 7 years of continuous cohabitation, the relationship is legally recognized as a marriage, together with all rights (and responsibilities - don't forget those!) appertaining thereto, no different than a marriage solemnized in a church or at the JP's office. The law doesn't prevent marriage by any of the previously recognized mechanisms.

in the sense of human equality, married, hetero couples will become stigmatized and social outcasts by the mere presumption that they are some how, privileged.
persons of a perceived privilege but less wealth usually suffer the violent wrath of the under-privileged.

Fair enough - they've stigmatized the rest for long enough. I submit that when one is dealing with violent wrath, the legal niceities of being married or not are not foremost on one's mind at the time, and jealous, violent types will find any excuse to be so - if not marriage, they'll find something else. At least they did BEFORE this vote, and I don't think the vote will change the basics, just the focal point. Furthermore, they ASKED to be considered "privileged" with this vote.

this amendment emphatically eliminates all other forms of civil unions as valid and nullifies any previously applicable laws.

It nullifies all other forms of civil unions as "valid" in a legal sense, but they were not valid in a legal sense before, either. What it does, in essence, is to re-state accumulated legislation in the matter, then take it the extra mile to codify it into the state constitution, which in my mind is overkill, and that's why I voted against it. It was unnecessary, but doesn't change anything that wasn't standing the day before the vote.

You see, here there weren't any previously applicable laws granting marital rights to the unmarried. Even with Common Law marriage, there was a line of demarcation where one day you are single and the next you woke up married, with the rights and responsibilities attached to that. Cohabitation is dealt with by an entirely different body of law, separate from marriage law. An amendment mentioning "marriage" won't affect cohabitation. We had a case here a year or two ago where a Sheriff's Deputy out towards the coast was fired for cohabitation, and she wound up being reinstated because marital law didn't apply. NC can't tell you who to live with or how, they only govern property rights and such based upon YOUR choice, and this doesn't change that.

don't know about you, but i know many hetero couples who have invested in a future without the formal "marriage", why should they be deprived any rights ?

They won't. marriage will still be marriage, regardless of the route taken to arrive there. Previously, unmarried heteros had to use other legal instruments if they hadn't hit the seven year mark, and they still will.

yes, this is about marriage AND any other civil union (read it, it says so)

Yes, CIVIL unions... those recognized by the state legally. Cohabitation was not a legally recognized union here. Previously, one cohabiting partner could not just throw out the other without a 30 day eviction notice legally, and that will remain the same, because it was based not upon marital rights, but upon the landlord-tenant relationship, rather than a "union".

don't get me wrong, I'd prefer the whole concept of marriage was kept in the church and everyone (even those "married" via the church) obtain a "civil union" legally.
it'd certainly be tougher to subvert the active govt systems; health, welfare, tax, court and any other govt support system in use today.

I'm with you on that, up to a point. I think marriage should be exclusive to the church - especially if people are going to attempt to use a religious argument to prevent others from marrying. Once they give the State a say in it at all, then they must abide by State edicts - both FOR and AGAINST. It's just an oddity of my mindset that I believe the State has no business meddling in it either way, nor should the State have any say in it at all. It's a private, personal matter.

ok, after re-reading your post, i get that you think this only effects the gay population ???
am i reading you right?

No. It affects gays, it affects hetero polygamists and polyandrists, and it affects a number of other minor lifestyles which can be either, but it only affects them legally, not morally or spiritually. I had a friend who had 3 "wives" here, but only one of the was a "legal" wife, because that's all the law allowed for. I don't think he's going to shuck off two of these women he's grown fond of over the years over this, and I'd hate to be the law dawg that went and tried to make him do so. If they never did before, I doubt they will now, though.

as for before the vote - i didn't participate or know about it or you'd have heard my opinion on it.

They had yard signs all over the place here (I'm in a college town jammed in between two college cities) but that was about the extent of it. Not much discussion that I was privy to. I had no idea it would take the national stage by storm like this.

i know you know the Constitution so re-read the 1st, 10th, 14th and the 9th for that matter.
paraphrasing here - 1st - equal privilege to all - civil marriage (not Holy Matrimony) would be included

I read a protection against mixing religion with State, a protection of the free exercise of religion, a protection of a free press, and a protection of political speech directed at the government for the redress of grievances there. Which of these do you contend this violates?

10th - powers not delegated belong to the people - (to each their own)

"Powers not delegated". My contention is that by demanding State recognition, they have delegated the powers to the State to make that determination, which in my mind was a tactical error.

14th - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Yet they do, every single day. It must be that there is a mechanism allowing for the State to legislate built in to the Constitution somewhere, then. I read that to mean that the States cannot pass laws COUNTER to US (Federal) law, specifically the Constitution, since it specifies "privileges or immunities".

9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The argument will likely be made that "the People" ceased to retain that right when they insisted on State intervention in it.

for decades, co-habitants have been recognized, legally protected, legally admitted (lawsuits, visitations), settled property disputes, endured domestic disturbances and all the legal ramifications attached, raised families, buried families and done many other "accepted behaviors" without the label of being married.
Not any more.

That remains to be seen, I suppose. All I can say is for myself - if or when my roommate is hospitalized, and I decide to visit, it would be good to have a camera rolling if anyone tries to prevent it. I know how it went last time, and don't foresee a different outcome this time. Property issues are not a problem for me - I didn't take up with her for property, and if she took up with me for financial reasons, she's hitched up the wrong horse to her wagon. With that said, I can still leave anything i want to anyone I want in my will - I could even leave it to you, and no one could say "BOO!" I did run into a problem once with real estate - after I'd been "shacked up" for seven years, I found that I had to get her permission to sell MY property, because she had a claim to a wife's share, even though we weren't married, and even though the property was acquired free and clear long before I ever met her.

emergent care example -- your "mate" but not spouse is admitted to the hospital and needs an emergency appendectomy (life in jeopardy) -- previously, as a "mate" (household resident), you could give permission to proceed. Not as of this law.
Spouse or family or directive (medical POA [power of attorney]) only can make the decision and your "mate" could die while the proper contact is made.
any number of emergency situations could imperil the lives of those who need care the most simply due to this "stipulation" (i dare not call it a law - it just doesn't qualify)

That depends on the legal groundwork you have laid ahead of time, and how strong your will is. there are legal instruments to get around that, and if it's someone you truly care about, that should be seen to ahead of time. Actually, even before this decision in NC, I couldn't have given that permission without a prior legally recognized instrument, separate from any "relational" claims. I take it that is different in your state, and that may be where some of the confusion over this issue is stemming from - people who are trying to interpret NC law based on the laws of other states. A filed POA is a good place to start.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Furbs
Luckily for anyone interested in being in a same sex marriage, you are still entitled to all of the rights and privileges of that union in any state if you are given a legal marriage certificate in a state that allows same sex marriages.

The only recourse a state has is to not allow them to be issued in their state.

any chance you have a link for the above ??
from my understanding, unions entered elsewhere will Not be honored in States who deem them invalid.
in other words, you can travel/visit there, just don't die there. (as is said 'round here)

He's referring to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


I am very impressed by your logic and also your ability to express yourself so articulately. Keep it up.
Humanity is a young species and it shows even more on this thread that we have a long way to go before we grow up.
The thing is opinions and beliefs are so many times hand-me-downs and are not ones own. Sad....

I like this quote by Abraham Miller.
10 gods can not change the opinion of 1 fool, especially if another fool agrees with him.

Originally posted by Honor93
While this is true, the work may be just beginning. ever think of that ??
consider this ... it's an ELECTION cycle ... need we really say more ?

That's trending towards my notions in the matter - some grandstanding here to whip up the troops for the coming election, because lord knows there's not much else to get excited over this cycle, and they're trying to hide the similarities in the candidates with this as a smoke screen - a manufactured issue.

what IF ... it was the 'goal' all along to have the State Supreme Court decide the issue ?
what better way than to permit passage of such atrociously oppressive and irrelevant amendment ?
talk about a fast track to the main desk.

i really don't expect this to remain standing for long.
especially now that ppl are whining, more ppl are listening, learning and taking action rather simply doing what they're told.

It will get interesting, that's for sure. How does one have A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION DECLARED UNCONSITUTIONAL? I expect we'll soon see the legal machinations and maneuverings to attempt just that.

i really wish ppl would stop referencing "separation of Church and State" as though it's mentioned in the Constitution. that 'separation' is a figment of the imagination.
the Constitution restricts Congress and subsequently, the States.
there is no such separation specified or implied other than freedom for all religions.

Yeah, me too. The First Amendment is pretty clear, but it gets taken afield frequently. In matters touching upon religion, it prevents declaration of a State religion, it prevents Congress from passing laws in religious matters, and it guarantees the free exercise of religion, but it does NOT "separate Church and State" anywhere in the language, and certainly not to the extent that proponents are trying to push it. What it says in effect is that government, specifically Congress, has NO say in it either way - neither yea nor nay.

glad to read that you got to vote and against it at that

am curious what "legal" reasons/issues led you to such a vote, care to share?

Because I don't believe that personal choice is a proper provenance for legislative action. I don't believe the State should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all, much less determining who can and cannot be married. It's a personal commitment and a personal matter, not a matter for State intervention or imprimatur. I'm not gay, and I find the activity distasteful, but not the person. Therefore I don't engage in the activities, and don't shun the person. I don't recognize MY right to decide FOR them what they do or who they do it with, and neither do I recognize the State's right to do so.

I recall many years ago, when I was in high school. I spent summers during my sophomore and junior years in a local college. One of the other guys in the dorm was gay, and that fellow was shunned horribly by the rest, and suffered ostracism for no good reason. I used to go sit in his room and talk with him to keep him from being entirely on the outside looking in. The mud packs and whatnot that he'd sometimes be wearing was a bit over the top, but what the hell, it was him, not me, so I never looked twice. Some of the other guys started muttering and whispering and whatnot, but it didn't take long for them to be set straight - so to speak - and that muttering stopped cold when they found out just how fast they could be told to kiss my ass, I'd do what I wanted, when I wanted, and where I wanted, and I'd damned well talk to whom I pleased. And by God I NEVER turned my back on that guy. It would have been a failure of character - mine - in my mind, and I wasn't going to have it. I don't have to be gay or straight to simply associate with PEOPLE. It's not like it's a catching disease or anything, and I have yet to have a gay guy hit on me but one time. They're gay, not simple sex maniacs. Gays are people, just like you and I.

It may be that episode colored my vote as much as my political proclivities. NO MAN gets left behind in my little world.

I personally agree with this one. If Jesus/GOD is against it then I am against it as well. I don't judge those who are gay but I d on't question GOD and his methods. Also, Obama is FOR it so again, I am against it, if only for that reason.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Because gays have been demanding that everyone else recognize their relationships as legitimate. The rest said "no".

AGAIN... if you don't ask permission, they can't say no.

Also - if you demand their opinion, make sure you're ready to accept it. You'll never, EVER, dictate it.

wow, really ?? which totalitarian island are you on ??
"the rest said NO" ... how does that even matter where everyone is equal ??

It matters because they asked. They submitted it to public scrutiny, and then found that they didn't like what came back. My whole point is don't ask for permission, and it can't be withheld.

who in their right mind asks permission of their servants [government] to do a damn thing ??
my servants don't have the authority to tell me NO.

The problem there is that the government is not your servant solely. Others have a stake in it. When one seeks governmental permission, he is really seeking the permission of the other people who have a stake in that government. Better to keep the government on a short leash by not seeking it's imprimatur.

and, last i checked, no one asked for an opinion, they are/should be demanding equality.

Exactly, and by seeking that validation of equality, they opened the door for it's denial.

i seriously doubt anyone desires dictating an opinion rather demanding legal equality as individuals.
they are citizens who have chosen their "pursuit of happiness" ... whether or not anyone else agrees.

No. They chose their pursuit of happiness - and here comes the problem - they sought to force acceptance of it on the unaccepting. Better to do your thing and ask no man's leave to do so.

if they are not harming me/you, my/your opinion has no relevance.
Equality, however, is eternally relevant.

It has relevance only when you ask for it. The asking is what gives it relevance.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Freenrgy2



I think its stupid that Christians can't retain the biblical meaning of marriage and gays and lesbians can't have their "civil unions".

Both will allow the same the same benefits under the law!

Unfortunately, this specific ruling makes 'civil unions' illegal. Because Christians want their religious definition of marriage enforced by the State.

Mark these words: it will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. State enforcement of personal beliefs is a two edged sword, and it cuts both ways. They've opened a door that they should have left closed, because eventually that sword will be turned on THEM by their opponents.

God bless North Carolina. It's such decisions that reinforce the notion that "The south will rise again".

If only all the states follow suit.

Originally posted by ellieN
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

I am very impressed by your logic and also your ability to express yourself so articulately. Keep it up.
Humanity is a young species and it shows even more on this thread that we have a long way to go before we grow up.
The thing is opinions and beliefs are so many times hand-me-downs and are not ones own. Sad....

I like this quote by Abraham Miller.
10 gods can not change the opinion of 1 fool, especially if another fool agrees with him.

edit on 10-5-2012 by ellieN because: added

I've heard and agree with that quote. Thank you for your kind words. Judging by the eloquence of your writing, it would seem that I am in good company. We are a young species, and will take more people like yourself to ensure that we survive to be an old species.

Again thank you.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Mark these words: it will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. State enforcement of personal beliefs is a two edged sword, and it cuts both ways. They've opened a door that they should have left closed, because eventually that sword will be turned on THEM by their opponents.

Finally an intelligent post.

The Gov doesnt care who marries who, or what your Family Values are.

While the masses bicker with each other over these TOKEN topics, the real issues of

illegal interference in other countries, deficits, ballooning Poor class are being ignored.

So go ahead, stick your nose in your neighbours business, and remember , we are

the land of the Free.

I posted earlier, however, with the responses... I feel compelled to do so again.

I am a Christian. I do not agree with the Gay lifestyle. HOWEVER, what a person does consentually with another person is none of my business.

And being a Libertarian, if you read the US Constitution... it puts no conditions on rights of American citizens. As such, Gay or Lesbian or Transgendered peoples have the same rights that Christians or Hindu or Muslim or Atheists do. We are citizens of the USA.

As a Christian, Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself...not your straight neighbor, not your Christian neighbor, not your white or black or red or yellow neighbor...just love your neighbor. Jesus also said judge not lest ye be judged... whole lot of judging here at ATS and in NC. Jesus said blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy...

My wife and I have a friend..he is a friend to our whole immediate family. he is gay. Nicest and most gentle man you could ever meet. We have seen the anguish and hurt of part of his family ostracizing him, basically excluding him from their family. So, we adopted him as a father figure and he does things with us... beach trips, going out to eat, sharing stuff from our gardens...everyday life stuff. It is a real shame this man...whom would literally not hurt a flea... be excluded from enjoying life and liberty because of his natural feelings.

In my work, I meet more than a few gay and lesbian couples and peoples...all good upstanding citizens, business people, and farmers. Some are more open than others...but all live with a contrived shame from righteous people.

It would be a better world if we let God do His job with the judging and simply love people, encourage people, build up people...God made them too. If my neighbor is a vegetarian or can't swim or is allergic to dogs or likes wine with a meal... do we exclude them from rights and liberties? I may not like everything they do... but many people don't like what I do. So what? Yet a person likes another person... and it disturbs us, so we curb their rights.

Not all gays wear pink or talk with a lisp...and not all Christians or North Carolinians are iggnorant, slow talking, cousin lovers that drive around with orange cars running moonshine and dixie horns. Please back off the generalities and stereotypes folks.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I was not spewing lies....I was giving my opinion....even though in NC marrying first cousins is legal ...I think it is morally wrong and to me it is incest and inbreeding... those are my opinions and I stick by them.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

I was not spewing lies....I was giving my opinion....even though in NC marrying first cousins is legal ...I think it is morally wrong and to me it is incest and inbreeding... those are my opinions and I stick by them.

As I said before, I live in N.C. and I do not know of anyone who has ever married their first cousin, although I am sure that is probable somewhere here and in the other 20 states where it is legal. I can't image marrying my first cousins. ( or even a 2nd cousin, which is legal in all states)
It is legal to marry your first cousin in 21 states!! That's nearly half of all of our states. .!

Real simple fix.

Call it a 'civil union' at the State level, no matter if man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Just allow for equal benefits for all.

And, if two people want to get "married" in a church, so be it. They can call it a "marriage". If two gays want to find someone will "marry" them, so be it. They can consider themselves "married".

It all seems this is a question of semantics. As long as everyone is treated fairly, what's the problem?

reply to post by Nightwalk


I'm interested in hearing if there is any logic at all behind such a sentiment on your part.

What possible excuse could you have for wanting to persecute and deny rights to people who live the exact same way you do, except for one single thing that really isn't any of your business?

There's a number of crude sexual acts that take place in the southern part of America, and I don't see anyone throwing a fit about those. "Eh, stuff happens when you're wasted." Bullcrap. I'm tired of the arrogance of the southern people. They just want to have things their way, when half of them aren't even educated.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Leviticus is a stinking pile of trash, and every experienced student of the Bible knows that. What's more, this is a distinct example of cherry picking. How many people here have laid with a woman while she was having her monthly cycle? How many people here have charged interest while lending to a brother, or eaten bacon?

Exactly. And yet you choose the mosty harmless of all of these nonsensical prohibitions, one that scars the hearts of thousands of innocent peolple nationwide, and keep pressing it while you sit there and eat bacon...just because you make it a point to stick your nose into the business of other peoples' sexual lives. Again, I repeat: ban heterosexual intercourse, and you won't have to worry about gays. You're the ones reproducing and creating more. Jeesh.

Such intelligence makes me fall off my barstool.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Real simple fix.

Call it a 'civil union' at the State level, no matter if man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Just allow for equal benefits for all.

And, if two people want to get "married" in a church, so be it. They can call it a "marriage". If two gays want to find someone will "marry" them, so be it. They can consider themselves "married".

It all seems this is a question of semantics. As long as everyone is treated fairly, what's the problem?

Well since "marriage" began as a non-religious matter, I would say that we legally call them all marriage. If someone wants to get married in a church then call it "Holy Matrimony", which by definition means "a marriage that has been officiated by ceremony performed by clergy."

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
And, if two people want to get "married" in a church, so be it. They can call it a "marriage". If two gays want to find someone will "marry" them, so be it. They can consider themselves "married".

There are many gay Christians who want both legal government marriage and a church wedding in the eyes of their God.

There are many Christian churches willing to marrying them.

There is no difference - - - and there will be no compromise.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Real simple fix.

Call it a 'civil union' at the State level, no matter if man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Just allow for equal benefits for all.

And, if two people want to get "married" in a church, so be it. They can call it a "marriage". If two gays want to find someone will "marry" them, so be it. They can consider themselves "married".

It all seems this is a question of semantics. As long as everyone is treated fairly, what's the problem?

Well since "marriage" began as a non-religious matter, I would say that we legally call them all marriage. If someone wants to get married in a church then call it "Holy Matrimony", which by definition means "a marriage that has been officiated by ceremony performed by clergy."

edit on 10-5-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)

Nah, I like my idea better, especially since marriage has been used in the religious context for quite some time now.

I don't think the State or Federal government has a right to define marriage. But they can easily define a civil union for the purposes of equality.

It's a win-win by doing it that way.