North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul


Why are you so against Gay Marriage? Why?
How does it negatively affect your existence on this Earth?

Actually I'm not and I don't care if they are gay or not or if they get married or not....

I do care when people say that a behavior is also a "right" though.... AND I do believe in a State's right to vote on what they want...whether it is the death penalty, abortion, defining marriage, defining how many partners you can marry, defining legal consent age, making something legal or illegal...etc all at the State level...

I'm not going to fight for gay marriage, just as I'm not going to fight for polygamy and 100 other behaviors out there. Its special interest groups who put gays in their own unique category to suggest their rights are being trampled on while EVERYONE else that have behaviors outside of what the majority considerers the norm don't count.

I find it all hypocritical, and to suggest ALL behaviors are "rights" under the constitution is ridiculous.

reply to post by nenothtu

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?

none of what you listed ... the reference to amendment 1 was an incompletion error on my part.
started as 14, then realized i wanted to add Article IV, Section 2 and just didn't finish it.
it was late, what more can i say ??

anyway, that point should have emphasized the following from the primary body of the US Constitution, not the BoR or any subsequent amendments. In other words, this was a staple of the foundation of the nation.

Article IV, Section 2 ... The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
so, if marriage is a "privilege" then all citizens are entitled to participate.
however, since SCOTUS has determined that marriage is a "basic human right" ... then, it is subsequently entitled to all citizens of every State regardless of how it's perceived.
any way you classify the "marriage" act, it is already a protected privilege or basic human right entitled to all and well established within the primary body of the Constitution.

with regard to Amendment XIV (14) ... Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

as i hope you clearly see, this State amendment is in direct conflict with multiple tenets of this single Constitutional amendment. the A-1 doesn't have a leg to stand on so to speak.

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.

i may agree with the tactical error perspective but how else do you right a wrong unless you demand it be addressed ?

It must be that there is a mechanism allowing for the State to legislate built in to the Constitution somewhere, then

but, the States should not legislate in conflict with Constitutional protections.
not saying they don't anyway, but until it's challenged, it remains State law.

ever reviewed your State's oppressive and ridiculous laws that still remain on the books from looooong ago ?
sure, many of them are never enforced today, but they could be (even if unConstitutional) until repealed or challenged.
such is the nature of the beast known as Law.

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".

i would have to say that's a bit short-sighted and here's why ... the Constitution is not law, it is a collection of guarantees and an operating structure.
neither State or Federal laws may conflict with the guarantees provided in the Constitution.
yes, we currently have plenty of them, but that too is up to us to change.

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

what a failed argument. the ppl cannot cease to retain a right, they can voluntarily waive it, but they never cease to retain it by some imaginary default.

and i beg to differ as the persons pushing the legislation were not the oppressed persons.
the oppressed have yet to exert their rights.
the oppressed did not request this "permission" as you perceive, those already entitled did.

rights far exceed mere voting on a subject unqualified to be present on any ballot.
continued

reply to post by nenothtu

continued from previous ...

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.

and difficulties like these ^^^ are only the cream on the top of this barrel of BS

That depends on the legal groundwork you have laid ahead of time

i totally agree, but how many ppl follow our example ? why should anyone HAVE to ??
aren't we supposed to be free of such conflicts ??
wasn't that the point of forming a more perfect union ??

although, i submit that legal groundwork shouldn't be necessary if humans were permitted to exercise their natural rights minus the fancy State manipulations designed to subvert them.
___________________________

a different post -

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

yes, and i responded that it wouldn't apply (was more likely misunderstood) or we wouldn't need reciprocal CCW laws.
___________________________

another -

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.

smokescreen ?? i could agree with that, they need something strong enough to draw attention away from China and their latest asset grab.

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.

kudos
well stated and good for you being a stand up kinda guy.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Some people get to say thanks to two mothers for their love and compassion.

Acceptance is one thing... ignoring biology quite another. I've been unable to find, anywhere, a single valid instance of any person having two mothers. It would make genealogy too weird - people's family trees would start looking more like telephone poles.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

But marriage IS defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Your opinion does not trump what society considers marriage to be.

If they wanted equality, they would be happy with civil unions.

What you and most gays/lesbians are suggesting is that homosexuality has the right to subjugate the religious meaning of marriage simply because they feel that they should be treated equally. This is the minority, once again, forcing the majority to comply.

And when someone in the majority is offering a compromise, you balk. Therefore, i can only assume that real goal is not equality but the takeover of religion and the acknowledgement by all religions that homosexuality is ordained by god.

edit on 10-5-2012 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)

hmmm, this sure is a leap. not sure where it's headed but i'm guessing it's gonna be a hard landing.
if you are already married, are you ok with re-classifying it to a civil union, legally ??
if not, then what's your hang-up with a word ?

homosexuality has the right to subjugate the religious meaning of marriage simply because they feel that they should be treated equally

this deserves its own response ... are you completely blind to the obvious by choice or conditioning ?? marriage is not, was not and should not be re-defined by any religion or government. it is what it has always been ... a contract.

what compromise has been offered in NC ??
those who already had privileged status just HAD to have more, talk about whiners and cheaters.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

The protection of an individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, which ensures one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Hmm, so does this mean any behavior is a right?

hmmmmm, kinda sorta ... living life is a right until you get caught, then you may face consequences.
again, everything involving life and living is a right ... not houses, automobiles and toys ... but, privileges and protections extended to one applies to all, in this country.

while it is against the law, it is still my right to kill whatever i choose.
while it may be against some laws, it is still my right to smoke whenever and wherever i damn well choose.
while illegal for many a decades, clearly, it is still a right to enslave ppl, ask a corporation.

speaking of which, since corporations have the right to marry one another (they consolidate every day), tell us again what is religious about their union and why should anyone else be denied ??

reply to post by Xtrozero

don't be a tool, click on the data link he provided and read it over for yourself.
(some of us did already)
that isn't the topic of this thread anyway or are you running out of arguments ??

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93
thanks for sharing, am glad you stopped "collecting" and found a collectible worth keeping

I'm not the world's easiest guy to get along with, so any congrats due are due her, not me, for finding a way to put up with me. I just got lucky in finding someone with enough tolerance not to try to kill me in my sleep.

to obtain an order of protection would still be available for those in jeopardy but not married.

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. The important part as far as I'm concerned is that protection is afforded, not what it's called. One key difference may be the separation issue - but that won't be an issue in most cases, I think. By "separation", in a NC 5oB protective order, you have the option of removing the offender from the household or not. In the vast majority of cases, they ARE removed - that's why it came up as a perplexing issue in my case. There is a box on theform to check, and when I didn't check it to have her removed, I thought the DA's head would explode - he had evidently never had to deal with that before. I had to explain that I had no intent to make her homeless - I just wanted the ignorance to stop, without having to handcuff her before I went to sleep!

As an aside, if you ever want to know what embarassment feels like, try walking into court as a 6'2" guy who looks like he was made out of scrap hamburger and gristle, seeking "protection" from a five and a half foot woman.

Anyhow, non-domestic protective orders have a built-in standoff distance (usually 100 yards or so) that if violated means SOMEONE is going to jail. So that could be one potential ly KEY difference, depending on the circumstances.

(it's not like there is no protection from violence, per se, however, litigation involving married persons has built-in protections [spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another] that would not be afforded to any other 'union' and that's also discriminatory, especially since children can be compelled to testify against other immediate family members, but, that's another topic all together)

That's is another key difference, although one I've never had to deal with, married or not. I think, from my perspective, if I have to worry about my spouse or significant other "rolling over" on me, I probably have greater issues than whether or not I've picked the wrong one to hang out with. I night want to re-examine my behaviors that left the door open for testimony against me in the first place.

congrats on raising a fine young man

we sure don't have enough of them around these days.

Thanks! I'm proud of him, but I didn't do it by myself, though. His mom had 11 years or so to install basic humanity in him before I got an exclusive to try to ruin him with. That early training stuck, and he turned out fine in spite of me, more than because of me. He recently got placed in an opportunity to demonstrate whether he has any character or not, and made me proud. It's not easy to stand your ground against an entire county in a losing fight, but that is exactly what he did.

do try to understand, even though there are always ways to work-around obstacles, this is one obstacle that shouldn't remain for any willing, consenting adults, agreed ?
why should we be conditioned to behave like mice in a maze ??

Absolutely. Just because I choose not to avail myself of those advantages (or disadvantages, as they sometimes turn out to be) doesn't mean that I would prefer to deny them to others, and whether they are gay or straight makes no difference at all.

ok, you say 7yrs is the requirement to achieve marital status with the state minus a formal marriage, right ? (common-law)
my point about that is this ... that same law does NOT apply to any union other than a specifically defined and designated marital one and again, that's discriminatory.

The same people can get married common-law as can obtain a licensed marriage, so that won't change. Personally, I think it's discriminatory to force me into a marriage via common law when I choose not to marry (because my whole deal is keeping the State out of my relationships, and they are intent on forcing their way in), but that's another thing altogether.

The issue is not the route to marriage, it's the matrimonial state itself, and who is eligible. I don't believe that legal harbors, such as tax considerations, should be denied anyone based on their sexual proclivities. I'm not qualified to speak on esoterics, such as "love", in the matter. The whole deal with state-sanctioned marriages appears to me to be economic, rather than emotional. I can love anyone i want, and need no State approval to do so.

the term "marriage" originated as a contract between Families, not individuals or religiously specific peoples. why should the term be bastardized now ??
why can't it just be applied as it was intended ??

We will have to agree to disagree here. It doesn't matter to me what started a thing, the current practice is more important to me. I didn't contract with either of my wives' families - I contracted with the individual. There was, in fact, a fair degree of friction with the families over it. I guess they didn't contract with me, either. What I find amusing is that now that those marriages are over, the families think I'm the best thing since sliced bread - but there were times before when they'd have killed me if they thought they could catch me not looking!

People are funny.

The law doesn't prevent marriage by any of the previously recognized mechanisms.

the amendment please, it's not just a law anymore,

Agreed. it was a slip. I've still not quite wrapped my head around it - this is the first time I've ever participated in amending a Constitution - even if I was on the losing end. It was presented as a couple of boxes, like any common bond referendum, so I'm not entirely sure the gravity of the situation has been suitably impressed on the populace.

however, i agree and understand this ... which begs the question ... what exactly did everyone vote yes on ??
if the consentual common-law didn't apply to the gay population previously, why hold the vote at all ??

I honestly believe it was a knee-jerk reaction born of fear of the "other". Because of the LGBT propensity to push the issue, fearful people did an end-run to cut off the possibility that they might make headway here. That's also probably why the language "Civil Union" was included in it - because there has been so much scuttlebutt without any real education attached to it concerning that term.

I would prefer that ALL State-sanctioned relationships be referred to as "Civil unions", whether hetero or not, because the act of State Sanctioning makes them exactly that. I personally refer to my own as a "marriage", and my little missus as a "wife", specifically to differentiate it from a State-permitted relationship. I don't care what the State thinks in the matter - it's none of their business, and I didn't ask their leave, nor do I want their sanction, "advantges" or the attendant interference.

Furthermore, they ASKED to be considered "privileged" with this vote

which "they" ?? the overly religious heterosexuals ??


Heterosexuals period - any that voted "for" this. They want to set themselves apart, above, and they get what they get. May they find out that "superiority" isn't all they were led to believe. It opens doors they should nave left locked, and as i said before will, without a doubt, bite them in the ass on down the road - but they asked for it, with this very vote.

what gives them the authority to vote on anyone's natural right ??

We probably have different views on what constitutes a "natural right". To my mind, NO natural right begs for State sanction. The very act of State sanctioning makes it artificial, not natural. Legislation, and all the fruits thereof, are synthetic.

where is that authority provided or granted in any American Constitution (Federal or State)?

All of them, as far as I know, have a mechanism to allow for amendment. The authority comes from the people who participate. Whether that authority affects any given individual is at the discretion of that individual - whether he chooses to accept that yoke or not.

doesn't change anything that wasn't standing the day before the vote.

agreed entirely, but that still doesn't make either legislation any more Constitutional.

I guess I'm not alone in having a hard time wrapping my head around the enormity of this amendment This will precipitate an interesting question - If it is an amendment to the Constitution, and absorbed into that document, how can it be "unconstitutional"? There will certainly be some lively political debates in the matter as each respective side jockeys it's case into poistion. Times like this, i almost wish I had gone into Law - I could get fithy rich, which I would not doubt lose all of by noon next Thursday - maybe Tuesday, if it's a really good weekend!

You see, here there weren't any previously applicable laws granting marital rights to the unmarried

but, rights aren't granted, they are exercised.
previously, persons who were not formally married, were exercising their natural rights in spite of the law (your own story alludes to this)


Exactly - they are siezed they are exercised, they are not granted or asked for. My "right" to claim my wife on my taxes (for example) is no "right" at all - it is legislation, governed by legislators, and subject to their whims, which is why I never bother to seek after it any more. It's one of the reasons I eschew marriage period - if they have to "grant" it, I don't want it, because anything granted is subject to revocation.

IF there is an entire body of law separate from the marital laws (this itself is discriminatory) then they are in conflict with the US Constitution. that they have never been challenged is the problem to resolve in such an instance.

I'm not seeing the discriminatory aspect. Driver's licenses are also an entoirely separate body of law from marital law, and I don't feel discriminated against because I gave mine back. Robbery is governed by a separate body of law from marital law, and i don't feel discriminaed against. I don't have to marry a mna to rent a house from him, and that is governed by a separate body of law. I don't feel discriminated against. There are any number of laws governing interpersonal relationships apart from marital law, and it would be bedlam around here without them - or if they required marriage to take effect.

I probably just didn't make myself clear - I didn't mean there is a body of law that says "this is how you will govern cohabitational relationships" - I meant the laws that say "this is how you will act as a human in our society, regardless of who you hang out with."

although, i'm not sure i digested that story properly because i cannot comprehend how or which marital laws would prevent co-habitation or generate grounds for dismissal.

Divorce law, a subset of marital law.

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93

Previously, unmarried heteros had to use other legal instruments if they hadn't hit the seven year mark, and they still will.

while this is true, shouldn't the same apply for EVERYONE ??
in an equal society, when do we accept privileged status for any particular group of people ??
i thought we were moving away from such.

Gays can use the same legal instruments I do for such matters, so it's not "discriminatory". It might be if they were granted privileges denied to me, or if I were granted privileges denied to them, but that isn't the case. The one advantage they have over me, that I can think of, is they don't have to sky out of a relationship at 6 years and 11 months to avoid getting caught in the "common law" trap the State sets. They can keep on trucking, and for that I may envy them somewhat.

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".

come on now, what's with the strawman argument?
here, i can't toss a "boarder" out after 72 hours without legally evicting them first, that soooo doesn't apply but i get your point.

Straw man? It's the way the law IS here, and the way I have to govern my life as an umarried "cohabitator". No different from gay unmarried cohabitators. As "unmarrieds", the same laws cover us both. We can both safely ignore marital law and divorce law, but we also have other points of law we have to attend to.

In the aforementioned tempestuous marriage, before we were married, my future wife called the cops out one evening to throw me out over some sheer silliness, and was told point blank that unless she could show a bruise, she'd have to go through normal tennant channels to have me put out, and that would take 30 days. It's just a quirk of law that differs between here and there, and applies across the board regardless of sexual orientation. As it turned out, she kept me, because the law said that if i went, my "stuff" went with me - there was no "marital property" for her to seize or divvy up. I consider that an adantage, not a liablility of remaining unmarried

and i agree with you, up to a point.
when and if marriages become divorceless, i would totally agree.
until then, there is always issues of property and currently, only the State governs that so how could we change the concept of divorce to properly eliminate the State ?

A simple rule of "what you brought in, you take out" weighted in favor of making sure any children are taken care of, rather than personal gain by the adults. For example, I had property (real estate) that I took into both marriages - but even though it was mine, and neither of the wives had any hand in acquisition, both could have claimed half of it. that ain't right. It was free and clear before I ever met either, and neither ever put a dime into it. The second never even set foot on it. As it turned out, in both cases I gave more than the law required. I gave both the house we lived in, and everything in and around it, other than one car and my personal, portable stuff. the rest was theirs, my parting gift. We agreed on an amount for child support, and I gave that, and quite a bit more - until the second one went to the law to try to TAKE more than i was giving. When she did that, I paid exactly what the law said i had to, and not a dime more. Net loss for her, but she ought not to have gotten greedy. Instead, I gave the kids a lot more during their visitation with me.

It's about the KIDS, in my mind. The adults get what they make for themselves, but that ought not to be a limitation on the kids. I kid you not, I lived on ramen noodles for extended periods to make sure they had what they needed at her house... until she got greedy. Then it was all on her beyond what the law required me to pay.

I tend to lack respect for people who view a marital commitment as a business arrangement.

oooo,ooooh - how 'bout we change the law to reflect that all property involved in a divorce is relegated to ownership of the Church ??
that oughtta eliminate any need for State oversight in marriages

HELL no! When the Church works for ny stuff, they can have it - not until then!

then, the "religiously married peoples" can negotiate with the church for their property
(provided it doesn't get sent overseas first

)
others, can just settle a property dispute in the same manner they do today.

They wouldn't like my negotiating style...

while i have my own opinions about polygamy, i still find it wrong and absurd that any man be forced to risk his freedom to assert his rights amongst consenting adults.
he takes on the risk of legal ramifications just to live his daily life ... and i just don't see any equality in that.
(legal, schmeagle ... still doesn't make it equal)

I think if any man thinks he can handle more than one woman at a time, he's a fool, and should never go to sleep - but if he's game to give it a try, I have no quarrel with him. He's already got trouble enough without me adding to it! LEGAL ramifications would be the least of my worries in that condition, but that's just me. Generally speaking, if the parties are not legally bigamous, there's not much the law can do around here. If they just live their lives and leave people alone, they don't get the knock on the door that sets the whole ball rolling, the same as single party cohabitants.

if you read all the pages in this thread, another NC resident stated that only on the day of the vote did they witness one commercial against the proposal. for weeks in advance and throughout their region, all they heard about was passing it.
sad if you ask me ... ppl just don't get involved like they used to.

I saw the yard signs, and one Church billboard. I don't watch much TV, so I never saw any commercials either for or against. I don't recall any on the radio, either. Looking back, I find that odd that there wasn't more discussion, since as I said before I live in a college town sandwiched in between two college cities. People SHOULD have been more engaged all things considered. maybe they'll learn from it, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's really wierd that an old fart like me got up and out to vote against it, when most of the younger people howling about it NOW couldn't be bothered.

Originally posted by Cito
Glad to see democracy working

Majority rule, and I stand by the majority.

If they would have voted to unban it I would have stood by the majority.


Those saying the government should step in and change it or that they should dismiss the vote are unamerican and don't believe in a democracy.

10th amendment and majority rule proved that our democracy at least for the moment, still works.

I voted against it. I do NOT believe in democracy, EMPHATICALLY. I believe instead in a Constitutional Republic. Does that make me "unamerican"? If it does, I'm fine with that. I stand in good company - those same founders of the Constitutional Republic who were ALSO emphatically against democracy.

Originally posted by Honor93

here's a question for you and all others who cheer this perversion of democracy ...
(if you are against guns, please excuse the analogy but rights are rights, soooo)

weapons and self defense have been a recognized right of the people since the very beginning. how would you respond if the rest of the state, democratically, took a vote to prevent YOU and solely you from owning or utilizing any weapons of any kind ?
would you still support this democratic infringement of your right ??

You can take it a step further and, leaving out weapons altogether, make it more inclusive. Concentrate only on the "self-defense" part of that equation.

How would they react if a law were passed denying them, and ONLY them, the right to defend themselves in any way - physically or even legally? What if a law were passed putting them entirely at the mercy of anyone, in the streets or even in court, and not allowing them to defend themselves at all, in any way, by any means? Waht if that were passed by a "democratic" vote of the majority?

Would they still adhere to their "democracy"?

It's a very real possibility, you know, when the mob is allowed to rule all...

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93

Article IV, Section 2 ... The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
so, if marriage is a "privilege" then all citizens are entitled to participate.
however, since SCOTUS has determined that marriage is a "basic human right" ... then, it is subsequently entitled to all citizens of every State regardless of how it's perceived.
any way you classify the "marriage" act, it is already a protected privilege or basic human right entitled to all and well established within the primary body of the Constitution.

with regard to Amendment XIV (14) ... Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

as i hope you clearly see, this State amendment is in direct conflict with multiple tenets of this single Constitutional amendment. the A-1 doesn't have a leg to stand on so to speak.

That would be a very good approach to take in a challenge, and it would have wide-reaching consequences if upheld. It would strike down parts of the constitutions of at least 32 states, and even delve into apparently unrelated realms, such as nation-wide concealed carry. It would be a bold stroke for the federal government to take, and could potentially deal the death blow to States Rights. I would not be surprised if that isn't the exact approach the Obama Regime takes.

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.

i may agree with the tactical error perspective but how else do you right a wrong unless you demand it be addressed ?

I can only speak for myself here. I don't demand it be addressed - I just do it, and if anyone takes issue, THEY can demand it be addressed, and we'll hash it out where the rubber meets the road. In other words, I don't feel a need to have it addressed - I've already addressed it myself, not asking permission to do so.

but, the States should not legislate in conflict with Constitutional protections.
not saying they don't anyway, but until it's challenged, it remains State law.

The nature and extent of the Constitutional protections, and whether they have been violated or not, remains to be determined. That would be a proper subject for a challenge, I agree, but it's going to get hairy.

ever reviewed your State's oppressive and ridiculous laws that still remain on the books from looooong ago ?
sure, many of them are never enforced today, but they could be (even if unConstitutional) until repealed or challenged.
such is the nature of the beast known as Law.

That's a fact! There is a county out east of here - Bertie County, maybe, I'm not sure - where it is still legal to beat your wife, as long as you 1) do it on Sunday, and 2) do it in the Public Square, and 3) do it with a stick no bigger in diameter than your index finger. I think that if I tried that, I'd have to sleep behind a locked steel door the rest of my days, though. My sweetie isn't big on the law, and thinks it's just there to clean up the mess she makes afterwards - and there would DEFINITELY be a mess in the making!

I am also pretty scrupulous about not allowing hogs to sleep in my bathtub - I hear that's illegal, too, but haven't seen the statue.

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".

i would have to say that's a bit short-sighted and here's why ... the Constitution is not law, it is a collection of guarantees and an operating structure.
neither State or Federal laws may conflict with the guarantees provided in the Constitution.
yes, we currently have plenty of them, but that too is up to us to change.

The Constitution is a contract between the States, the Federal Government, and the People. The main body of it details the structure of government and the various areas of responsibility, with the BoR containing most of the guarantees against infringement of particular rights. As a contract, it carries the force of contract law, and ifringements of the BoR are generally dealt with as such - whether a particualr action by one of the parties is to be considered a "breach of contract" against one of the other parties.

State or Federal laws may breach that contract, at which point it becomes imperative to adress the breach, and clarify what the contract really means there. That is where the "redress of grievances" enters the fray. It amounts to a repair of the breach (the "grievance") as a remedy (the "redress") for the offended party.

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

what a failed argument. the ppl cannot cease to retain a right, they can voluntarily waive it, but they never cease to retain it by some imaginary default.

"Waiving" a right, or even failing to exercise it, carries the same practical effect as failing to retain it. Just as you cannot pick a fight in a bar and then claim "self-defense" if you kill your opponent, you cannot demand that someone else make a determination of YOUR rights (and requiring a determination of ANYONE's rights necessarily include your own), then ignore it if it doesn't suit you. The burden falls to the instigator of an action.

As I've mentioned a couple of times now, I expect this to have unforseen and dangerous consequences for the instigators of this amendment on down the road, but they opened that door themselves. Giving the State control of what they consider to be religious matters set a dangerous precedent, and will eventually carry them to a place they never wanted to go.

Just like that bar-room fight I mentioned above.

and i beg to differ as the persons pushing the legislation were not the oppressed persons.
the oppressed have yet to exert their rights.
the oppressed did not request this "permission" as you perceive, those already entitled did.

There are quite a number around here who already exercise their rights on a daily basis. Just like i do, they just do it, and ask no man's permission already. Some few started insisting that someone else recognize their rights, and ASKED permission with that insistence. There was the predictable backlash, and they appear to have been entirely unprepared to back up their position with education, so the backlash carried the day in a fit of overkill.

Again, when you ask or demand that the State recognize your status, you run the risk of having the State regulate that status, or even just say "no" AND regulate that status. When you demand that the State has a say, you open the door for the State to have a say. that applies not only to the LGBT community, but to their opponents as well. had the gays not demanded recognition of a pre-existing right that they should have just exercised, then there would have been no stimulus (that's funny, now that I think about it - how the gays are stimulating the straights) for the straights to try and move a blockage in place.

What I think some of us are doing here is confusing "rights" with "privileges". The State can issue a privelege, then regulate it, as the State is the source of it. A State CAN NOT issue a right. When things like this occur, people are asking the State to convert a right into a privilege. The State can't do that, of course, but the practical effect is the same if the individual allows it. In marital matters, if I seek a State license, I am also agreeing to State regulation of that relationship, and all the good and the bad that entails - including who may enter that relationship. If i seek the protection of the law, i am bound by that law. You don't get the good without the bad.

rights far exceed mere voting on a subject unqualified to be present on any ballot.
continued

That's true, but NC did not vote on rights, they voted on privileges. When they asked for the State imprimatur, it was concerning a law, a privilege, by virtue of State involvement.

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93

That depends on the legal groundwork you have laid ahead of time

i totally agree, but how many ppl follow our example ? why should anyone HAVE to ??
aren't we supposed to be free of such conflicts ??
wasn't that the point of forming a more perfect union ??

Imperfections have crept in over time, cheifly due, I believe, to people insisting on "laws" that confer some sort of advantage to them, rather than just doing what they have to in order to secure their own happiness on their own. EVERY TIME one asks for a legislative action, he is at the same time asking for regulation, because that is the very nature of legal machinations. There is no legislation without regulation, because legislation IS regulation. that is the very basis for my opposition to "big government".

It never fails to amaze me, in particular concerning this debate, how people can say they want the government "out of their bedrooms", and at the same time demand that the government legislate their bedrooms into legal existence. You can have one, or the other, but not both.

although, i submit that legal groundwork shouldn't be necessary if humans were permitted to exercise their natural rights minus the fancy State manipulations designed to subvert them.

They can exercise their natural rights. The problems arise from their demand for UNnatural rights - i.e. "priveleges" at the hand of the State. Privileges are unnatural "rights", as they are entierly synthetic, manufactured and issued by the State.

I'm willing to be dollars against donuts that there are some who thought I was going to take that "unnatural" in an entirely different direction! I didn't because that's not what I believe - it's not up to me to determine another human's "nature".
___________________________

yes, and i responded that it wouldn't apply (was more likely misunderstood) or we wouldn't need reciprocal CCW laws.

NC doesn't have reciprocity with very many states at all, in any matters. For example, my Law Enforcement certification from Virginia is not recognized right across the border by North Carolina (the State) but local law enforcement officers generally recognize me as "one of their own", even though I'm not.
___________________________

smokescreen ?? i could agree with that, they need something strong enough to draw attention away from China and their latest asset grab.

There are currently several things on the horizon in need of a distraction - the Chinese bank purchases being but one. It does make me wonder at the timing of this vote, and the relative quiet beforehand compared to the firestorm it blew up into. It also provides some degree of "distance" between the positions of the two current main candidates, which distance i believe is more synthetic than real, and superfluous - what difference does it make what one of them believes more than what I or yopu beleive in the grand scheme of things? neither they, nor you or I, can override the vote of the masses single handedly, so WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT THEY THINK in this matter?

kudos

well stated and good for you being a stand up kinda guy.

Being a "stand up kinda guy" is probably extreme. I just live my life, and try as far as I can to allow others to do the same, without my interference. I believe it would be a better world if all did the same, and we would all get a long a lot better.

reply to post by Xtrozero


So you think Americans should be allowed to pick and choose who deserves civil rights, and that second class citizenry is, as well as should be, acceptable. Okay. Got it. At least now I know where you stand.

reply to post by neo96


It's not doing a very good job if that's the case.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

So you think Americans should be allowed to pick and choose who deserves civil rights, and that second class citizenry is, as well as should be, acceptable. Okay. Got it. At least now I know where you stand.

The GOVERNMENT picks and chooses whom is deserving of civil "rights" - that is the function of government. It regulates matters of a civil nature, including civil "rights" - which are not rights at all, they are governmental edicts.

Second-class citizenry is acceptable only to proponents of democracy. They are the 49% of the population that the 51% lords it over via voting regulations over their lives.

We are from NC and were very disappointed when the results came in, although we pretty much knew how it would turn out. The majority of the people I've talked to couldn't look past the "gay marriage" issue, since in their opinion the bill would help make sure that homosexuals could never get married (even though it's been illegal here forever) they had to vote for it. It's started major controversy around the area I'm from because it's the bible belt. The older folks are 100% against change while the younger folks are more open minded.

I can only hope that by the time my children are old enough to make their own decisions and vote that they will be sure to understand the bills before they make their vote and keep an open mind while doing it.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

don't be a tool, click on the data link he provided and read it over for yourself.
(some of us did already)
that isn't the topic of this thread anyway or are you running out of arguments ??

I didn't take it that direction in the first place, but when someone's suggests something ridiculous I may respond.

Originally posted by Honor93

hmmmmm, kinda sorta ... living life is a right until you get caught, then you may face consequences.
again, everything involving life and living is a right ... not houses, automobiles and toys ... but, privileges and protections extended to one applies to all, in this country.

while it is against the law, it is still my right to kill whatever i choose.
while it may be against some laws, it is still my right to smoke whenever and wherever i damn well choose.
while illegal for many a decades, clearly, it is still a right to enslave ppl, ask a corporation.

speaking of which, since corporations have the right to marry one another (they consolidate every day), tell us again what is religious about their union and why should anyone else be denied ??

Well ok call it what you will, but I think you are confusing ability with rights. You may have the ability to kill me, smoke pot, or do a million other things, but that doesn't mean you have the right...

SO are all behaviors protected under constitutional rights...

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

So you think Americans should be allowed to pick and choose who deserves civil rights, and that second class citizenry is, as well as should be, acceptable. Okay. Got it. At least now I know where you stand.

Well I guess so since you and others are picking and choosing what you want to label as civil rights.
If I wanted to marry five women under the age of 18 is it my civil right to be able to do it? If not, why.....