North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
reply to post by seabag

 

You know, I was about to alert the mods, call them into this thread to read your 'contributions' but I decided against it. I

Shh....No snitchin.......

Originally posted by dayve
Ha...ha.....ha..... Marriage is a thing for straight folk, they need to come up with their own thing and quit cryin about it.... Its like atheist complaining they want to use the cross as their new symbol.....stupid

Yep, in fact they did and if bothered to read the OP it is called a "civil union", it would give all the legal rights of a religious marriage to a same sex couple without the stigma of a religious marriage.

reply to post by Radiobuzz

You know, I was about to alert the mods, call them into this thread to read your 'contributions' but I decided against it. I will however say that it's pretty evident to me that you are in fact trolling and trying to hijack this thread. You are not interested in the least to have an actual discussion. Either that or you lack the intelligence to engage in one.

First off…ATS isn’t your personal soapbox…expect a difference of opinion when you post a thread.

Second, while you were sleeping (or doing something else) the rest of us WERE having an intelligent discussion. It’s not trolling simply because my position makes your skin crawl!

I have that effect on certain people; others love me!

You also keep mentioning your constitution so let me remind you of the 14th amendment in case you have skipped it

There is no violation of the 14th amendment in the case you cited! Try again!

I wanted to reply to you but it's pretty hard in the sea of posts you have amassed during the short life of this thread.

I’ve contributed more to your thread than you have IMO!

Cheers!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Again, you said "Civil Unions' is a viable option for Gays.

It is not. This makes them illegal.

Clear?

10th Amendment!

The people voted!

Civil Unions aren't constitutionally protected!!

Clear??

.

14th Amendment Section 1

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.

The 14th Amendment says that all citizens must be given the same privileges as others. That means that the state must provide a way for homosexual couples to enjoy the same tax, property, and other benefits as heterosexual couples.

Clear????

reply to post by muzzleflash

My argument is that all government licencing of marriage should be banned.

If you feel so damned strongly about it then create a petition, get enough signatures to get it on a ballot and get a VOTE!

Basically marriage is a religious issue and government should have no place presiding over it or regulating it.

Again…start a petition.

Let people do what they want in their place of worship, and keep it outta government. Please.

THERE IS NO RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT. You seem to be confusing ‘government’ with the free will of the people.

reply to post by KillThePoor

i agree the vote should be to remove "marriage" from State authority entirely and implement "partnerships" as in a business partnership for all who desire such. conflict over.
if the partners decide to dissolve their partnership, it can be adequately addressed in the courts just like any other without conflict of the "marriage" component.

and on that note, why is it that these religious separations don't require church authorizations ??
i thought it was a religious matter.

reply to post by MikeNice81

The 14th Amendment says that all citizens must be given the same privileges as others.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage?

What was the outcome? Please share!

reply to post by seabag

IF the US Constitution were being applied correctly, SCOTUS wouldn't need to hear such a case
but that hasn't happened in an awfully long time, why would it now ??

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by dayve
Ha...ha.....ha..... Marriage is a thing for straight folk, they need to come up with their own thing and quit cryin about it.... Its like atheist complaining they want to use the cross as their new symbol.....stupid

Yep, in fact they did and if bothered to read the OP it is called a "civil union", it would give all the legal rights of a religious marriage to a same sex couple without the stigma of a religious marriage.

No. Wtf do they need the same right as a religious marriage..? They should just be happy they can be openly gay and leave it at that. If they want the "marriage" rights, then follow the rules of marriage....

reply to post by seabag


According to Black's Law Dictionary "Licence" means "permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal".

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.[1] Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[2] But marriage licenses were not required until after the civil war.[1] Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.[1] At least 32 nations have established significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.[3]

The history of where these "licences" came from is extremely revealing as to the true nature of this issue (abuse of government power to enforce religious doctrine upon other parties).

Marriage licenses were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licenses were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon. There could be a number of reasons for a couple to obtain a license: they might wish to marry quickly (and avoid the three weeks' delay by the calling of banns); they might wish to marry in a parish away from their home parish; or, because a license required payment, they might choose to obtain one as a status symbol.

But ultimately it is again shown to be a religious concept, whereas religious authorities were the originators of these documents as a means to govern their subjects social behaviors.

Anyways, here is more history for those interested:

Marriage licence Wiki

how did civil marriage become religious?

it seems NC would sooner see siblings, father and daughter, or mother and son, marry each other,

than 2 consenting adults of either.

to stipulate the sex of the marriage or civil is intrinsically sexist and to pretend to not notice it is the crux of the problem with human equal rights in USA.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
how did civil marriage become religious?

You have it backwards. "How did religious marriage become 'civil'?" is the correct format.

Let's go back to England from the mid 1700s to the early 1800s.

Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 affirmed this existing ecclesiastical law and built it into statutory law. From this date, a marriage was only legally valid, if it followed the calling of banns in church or the obtaining of a license—the only exceptions being Jewish and Quaker marriages, whose legality was also recognized. From the date of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, up to 1837, the ceremony was required to be performed in a consecrated building.

Since July 1, 1837, civil marriages have been a legal alternative to church marriages, under the Marriage Act 1836, which provided the statutory basis for regulating and recording marriages.So, today, a couple has a choice between being married in the Anglican Church, after the calling of banns or obtaining a license or else, they can give "Notice of Marriage" to a civil registrar. In this latter case, the notice is publicly posted for 15 days, after which a civil marriage can take place. Marriages may take place in churches other than Anglican churches, but these are governed by civil marriage law and notice must be given to the civil registrar in the same way. The marriage may then take place without a registrar being present, if the church itself is registered for marriages and the minister or priest is an Authorised Person for marriages.

From the Marriage Licence wiki

Now go read up on the history of the United States in relation to this mess.

reply to post by Honor93

IF the US Constitution were being applied correctly, SCOTUS wouldn't need to hear such a case
but that hasn't happened in an awfully long time, why would it now ??

That’s LAME!

The SCOTUS is part of the system! Most of the crap that goes before the SCOTUS is stuff that we ALL KNOW IS BS, like same-sex marriage.

It goes to the SCOTUS because it has already been ruled AGAINST in lower courts and the LOSERS didn’t like the ANSWER….kind of like this conversation.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

The 14th Amendment says that all citizens must be given the same privileges as others.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage?

What was the outcome? Please share!

In Loving v. Virginia the SCOTUS decided unanimously to strike down anti-miscegenation laws. They stated that they violated both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. Why, because "marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man. . ."

According to the 14th Amendment all citizens are to be given the same rights and privileges. If the court holds that marriage is a fundamental civil right, how can barring a person the right to marriage based on sexual orientation be legal?

Please do enlighten me.

Let me tell you what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had to say about California's amendment to ban gay marriage.

Prop 8 "therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples." Additionally it did not "have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties." Instead, all that Prop 8 "accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships."

They also found that,

Prop 8 "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." The panel majority stated that the "Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort,' " quoting and citing Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

There are further legal appeals coming. So, the SCOTUS has not had a chance to hear the case yet. IF the court goes with the Romer precedent it will not affect the Amendment in NC. If they go with a wider scrutiny it could be overturned.

We will wait and see how it goes.

reply to post by seabag

That’s LAME!

The SCOTUS is part of the system! Most of the crap that goes before the SCOTUS is stuff that we ALL KNOW IS BS, like same-sex marriage.

It goes to the SCOTUS because it has already been ruled AGAINST in lower courts and the LOSERS didn’t like the ANSWER….kind of like this conversation

i don't believe for one minute that applying the Constitution correctly is lame, sorry to hear that you do.

i understand HOW the case gets to SCOTUS, the point is, the matter should not be decided by any State authority. hence, it would never see the light of day on any desk at SCOTUS.

SCOTUS was not assembled to decide issues of "marriage" or any other like baloney.
they have more important issues with which to apply their skills and authority.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Ugh…..

Come on!

Title 1 - 1 USC § 7 - DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE”

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

link

reply to post by seabag


The SCOTUS has overturned 158 acts of congress previously. Why do you think the one you posted trumps the 14th amendment based on the federal cases I mentioned?

Is your answer to the stated federal court precedents, "cause congress said so?"

Ha...ha.....ha..... Marriage is a thing for straight folk.

can just imagine the # closet gay Carolina guys in hetero marriages, living a 'lie' -

what a shame the oppressions society still imposes - esp one that boasts liberty equality n justice for 'all'.

reply to post by neo96
Yeah, you're right.

They're just playing with matches in a dynamite factory for how quickly things could get out of hand in the current economy and all other factors going on combined. Such bad timing to play with some of the specific issues they've chosen to play. Among the worst. Gay rights and good old fashioned racism with some religion sprinkled across it all, if anyone missed about they're suppose to be mad at everyone else for one thing or another.

I definitely feel a long hot summer coming on. Very long, at this rate.

Wow you pro gay people crack me up.

If you stop and think a moment the one and only place you

see homosexuality openly displayed is in the animal kingdom.

It's oh so simple only animals do this behavior.I know you have seen

two male monkeys show this this behavior. .