Rangerland Forum Information

[Mike B.]

Sorry to our more sane NC-resident posters, but what is likely to happen today in North Carolina is pretty wild. For those not following it, North Carolina voters are deciding today on a state constitutional amendment that would set marriage between a man and a woman as the only legally recognized domestic union.

The text of the amendment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-calder/n..._b_1474680.html

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Other states have tried to explicitly outlaw gay marriage, of course, but what makes this amendment so terrible is that it prevents any other domestic union agreement from being recognized legally. Unions, domestic partnerships, etc.

The ACLU of North Carolina found in their report, "The Potential Legal Impact of the Proposed Same-Sex Marriage Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution," that the impacts go beyond just state benefits. Unmarried partners would not receive state protections including domestic violence protection, child custody and visitation rights, court enforced private agreements and a plethora of other protections that couples in civil unions and unmarried partnerships have come to expect from the state. So please, North Carolina, before you vote, understand the ramifications of what you're voting for.

The text seems to try and wiggle out of that in the second sentence, but at best, it is a terribly drafted amendment that would set up an inherent conflict. The first sentence says marriage is the only recognized union, not even sure what the second means. Maybe the courts could find some way to recognize domestic partnerships with it.

More here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...b3d26ef8e32c0d4

Last numbers are 55-39% in favor, so it doesn't look good. And so much for being able to at least respect Billy Graham.

[jkman61494]

Just another sad example of our society seemingly trying to go backward while the rest of the world continues to progress.

Maybe if we keep seeing our economy flatline, our infrastructure crumble and our society revert back to 1920's social norms, that we'll convince illegals to go SOUTH of the border and try to get into developing countries like Brazil.

This post has been edited by jkman61494: May 8 2012, 12:58 PM

[Alitaki]

If by the rest of the world you mean parts of Europe. When it comes to gay rights "the rest of the world progressing" is unfortunately, a small minority of the global populace.

[Nilan 666]

Nothing like being so pro-family that you come up with a constitutional amendment to keep a group of people from having one.

[Charlie]

I love North Carolina with all my heart. After I graduate, I will try and live in the Raleigh or Charlotte area. It really is a fantastic state, but fuck this shit.

It's honestly infuriating. It really lets me know what a bubble I live in down there, because the town of Davidson is honestly close to armed riots about the bill (probably) passing.

However, if it means anything, North Carolina is the last traditionally "Southern" state to pass this amendment. The rest of the deep south has one.

[Mike B.]

I love North Carolina with all my heart. After I graduate, I will try and live in the Raleigh or Charlotte area. It really is a fantastic state, but fuck this shit.

It's honestly infuriating. It really lets me know what a bubble I live in down there, because the town of Davidson is honestly close to armed riots about the bill (probably) passing.

However, if it means anything, North Carolina is the last traditionally "Southern" state to pass this amendment. The rest of the deep south has one.

Other Southern states have more narrowly-tailored constitutional amendments, however. Alabama defines marriage as heterosexual, but doesn't expressly outlaw same-sex domestic legal relationships. Louisiana outlaws same-sex marriage and civil unions, but doesn't ban same-sex domestic partnerships. This amendment in North Carolina is so broad that it not only excludes same-sex domestic partnerships from legal recognition, but heterosexual non-marriage relationships as well. What if you are a man and woman that don't want to get married, for example, but want to register as a partnership for some sort of benefit (estate issues, kids, domestic violence, etc.)? No way for you to obtain that recognition now.

This post has been edited by Mike B.: May 8 2012, 02:02 PM

[Hockey101]

I don't mind that it is a state's issue and the people have the democratic right to vote their way. And i was about to ask what the heck most of that meant. Mike B cleared it up in post #6.

So...this "domestic legal union" (what a stupid way to say it) means that only married couples can get certain benefits and if it is an unmarried couple then it cannot? Did i get that right?

[Mike B.]

I don't mind that it is a state's issue and the people have the democratic right to vote their way. And i was about to ask what the heck most of that meant. Mike B cleared it up in post #6.

So...this "domestic legal union" (what a stupid way to say it) means that only married couples can get certain benefits and if it is an unmarried couple then it cannot? Did i get that right?

Yes. So, even if you are opposed to gay marriage, this amendment goes far past that, and is extended to both same-sex AND heterosexual non-marriage domestic unions, whatever form they may take. Those protections vary widely from state to state, but most if not all states offer some sort of domestic relationship that is not marriage.

[Puckforbrains]

I would have expected this out of Arizona, but not NC. Hell, even Florida has been a bit more progressive than this.

[Hockey101]

I don't mind that it is a state's issue and the people have the democratic right to vote their way. And i was about to ask what the heck most of that meant. Mike B cleared it up in post #6.

So...this "domestic legal union" (what a stupid way to say it) means that only married couples can get certain benefits and if it is an unmarried couple then it cannot? Did i get that right?

Yes. So, even if you are opposed to gay marriage, this amendment goes far past that, and is extended to both same-sex AND heterosexual non-marriage domestic unions, whatever form they may take. Those protections vary widely from state to state, but most if not all states offer some sort of domestic relationship that is not marriage.

I think they would do it because don't married couples pay less taxes as a household rather than an unmarried couple? So their motive would actually be to cash in more from unmarried couples.

I am not sure what to think about this. I mean...on one hand it's....who cares...??? On the other it's more like trying to keep things more organized categorically? I think that i would exempt an unmarried couple with a child, or children. But...if i am living with my girlfriend for like...three years and i want to have the same benefits as a married couple then what happens if we break up and i live with another new girlfriend? Or i don't anymore. Or i change girlfriend every year?

I mean, i am just trying to think of reasons why they would do it. If it does not complicate much for the state in terms of legislature and other things then i think it's a stupid law. And really, just calling legal domestic union or whatever it was, that alone would make me vote against it. It's a stupid term. But if it is a matter of complicating the system and people trying to cheaply take advantage of the system then i can see why they are doing it.

[the old mole]

I live in North Carolina, but I really don't have anything intelligent to say about this. Just frustrating and disappointing that we gave the state legislature to far-right conservatives in what has traditionally been a fairly moderate state (for a southern state) and now their going to do irreparable damage. We're surrounded by Virginia and South Carolina, two of the craziest states in the union, and we won't even be able to make fun of them anymore. Thanks, everyone who voted for teabaggers in 2010. This is why we can't have nice things.

[LisaLisa]

Can the federal government challenge this amendment? Can all these "marriage amendments" by these states be challenged as a violation of civil rights?

[LisaLisa]

And the AP has called it--the amendment has passed. NC has just become a lot less fabulous. Their loss. NYC's gain.

[toph]

Man, that's embarrassing. It's never good when a huge amount of a state's residents are ashamed of their own state.

Must be how Arizonians feel a vast majority of the time.

[Kusand]

Can we amend NC out of America now?

[Nilan 666]

Small government for the win.

[the old mole]

Man, that's embarrassing. It's never good when a huge amount of a state's residents are ashamed of their own state.

Must be how Arizonians feel a vast majority of the time.

It really is embarrassing. We can't make fun of South Carolina and Virginia for being run by crazies anymore. At least my home county, New Hanover, voted No.

Buncombe, Watauga, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Orange, Durham, Wake, Chatham, and New Hanover are the counties that voted no on Amendment 1. In other words, Boone, Asheville, Greensboro, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, and Wilmington voted no. Those are North Carolina's college cities and towns.

But now that this amendment "protecting" marriage has passed, I expect pro-marriage activists to redouble their efforts. I want to see an amendment on the ballot in 2014 making adultery and divorce illegal. We're serious about "protecting" marriage, right?

[Ebase]

If by the rest of the world you mean parts of Europe. When it comes to gay rights "the rest of the world progressing" is unfortunately, a small minority of the global populace.

Yeah, well I have family in Israel and my cousin and his partner were married here in N. California and when they walk hand in hand in Haifa not one person cares. And this is in the cradle of Christendom.

But here in many parts of America? Backwards ass morons.

As it also happens that the "rest of the world progressing" is a small minority. I'll come flat out even if it is politically incorrect: most of the world is savage. It is filled with destitute, uneducated, and war torn. Believe me. I have been to SE Asia. I have been in E. Europe. These countries are devoid of many of the most of the most basic things for survival. If you are in places like Philippines where floods have wiped out your rice crops for the year, or in Africa where 1 in 3 women are raped. These places could care less about marriage rights. They care about the right to survive. Europe and N. America socially are eons more advanced. And so we are striving for a more perfect civilization. They are striving for a civilization in many cases. There needs are far beyond addressing progressive society social needs.

As for places like the Arab world? Women don't even have rights at all.

SO if we want to talk about progression, it just so happens that it is also happening in first world countries where societies' are recognizing the rights that we all should have under the governments that we have in place.

What kills me is that this is the USA. And I am a patriot although I am not always very proud of what it does. This is the country with the ability to be so much greater then all of these other countries is so backwards and ignorant with these topics. There exists a component of powerful RW social engineers who's aim is to decree how we all need to live based on their beliefs.

These people forget that the government doesn't give them their rights. Their rights are endowed by their creator. The government has absolutely no just cause to oppress a group of people from equal rights as any other citizens because another group decides that they don't like the idea of it. That is nonsense.

[Hockey101]

So....democracy is a failure in your eyes when people exercise their freedom to vote but you don't like it depending what they vote on? I am not even in full support of this law, but had it been a state that voted for a total liberal legislature that made no sense to most Americans, you would all be cheering and calling it intelligent. You guys should know better.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 8 2012, 11:59 PM

[Kusand]

So....democracy is a failure in your eyes when people exercise their freedom to vote but you don't like it depending what they vote on? I am not even in full support of this law, but had it been a state that voted for a total liberal legislature that made no sense to most Americans, you would all be cheering and calling it intelligent. You guys should know better.

I call it like I see it. They just amended their constitution not just to "defend marriage" (as ridiculous as I find that) but to make sure gay couples can have no legal recognition for their relationship. Despicable. And then to put the cherry on top, they worded it so that no union other than a straight marriage can be recognized. Don't believe in marriage? No recognition for you. Just unbelievably repulsive to me, and I'll back that opinion 100%. I don't have to applaud a majority of voters I don't agree with for voting for this, so don't try and sell me some line where I'm supposed to "know better" to quietly disagree or think that this was a good thing.

This post has been edited by Kusand: May 9 2012, 01:09 AM

[Kusand]

Potential consqeuences:
NC Amendment One and Unintended Consequences
Potential Legal Impact of the Proposed Domestic Legal Union Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution

In evaluating any law, one should examine its benefits in light of its drawbacks. In this post, I've attempted to highlight certain and potential drawbacks of Amendment One. Personally, I foresee no benefit whatsoever from the Amendment, but I recognize that many have religious reasons (the only beliefs I would concede are even potentially valid) for supporting marriage restrictions.

Even those voters should consider the harm this Amendment will do, before deciding whether to vote for or against.

Even if I oppose same sex marriage, do I support stripping health insurance away from same sex partners of city and county employees, who bargained with their employers for those benefits?

Even if I oppose same sex marriage, do I support overturning legally valid wills?

Even if I oppose same sex marriage, do I want to interfere in my fellow citizens' personal health care decisions?

Even if I oppose same sex marriage, do I support taking children out of loving families, and giving them to the State?

Even if I oppose same sex marriage, do I want to increase the number of uninsured motorists driving on the highways of my State?

All of these are certain or potential consequences of Amendment One. I suspect that even most supporters of the Amendment don't want them to come to pass. Supporters of the Amendment should consider such consequences strongly, before deciding to vote in favor of what I submit is a most poorly thought out law.

[Sed]

The majority is always right!

[leedsy99]

but had it been a state that voted for a total liberal legislature that made no sense to most Americans, you would all be cheering and calling it intelligent.

For example?

No matter how you couch it, this law was designed to limit the rights of homosexuals and, as a consequence, foster the notion that they are inferior to the rest of us. It's not fair and it's the inherent opposite of what this country is about and what we try to promote, sometimes with our own sacrifice of lives, throughout the world. The worst regimes in the world defend themselves as acting out the will of the people. That doesn't make it right.

[Beamer]

So....democracy is a failure in your eyes when people exercise their freedom to vote but you don't like it depending what they vote on? I am not even in full support of this law, but had it been a state that voted for a total liberal legislature that made no sense to most Americans, you would all be cheering and calling it intelligent. You guys should know better.

I call it like I see it.

Speaking of calling how one sees it... "rednecks..."

[toph]

And this isn't democracy. This is a populace being manipulated and unaware of what exactly they're voting in favor of.

[toph]

"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

Wow. These people realize what they're doing is he equivalent of the Sharia Law they're so afraid of? They're writing the Bible into their Constitution. It's theocratic. Legal marriage isn't just a sacrament.

"We are not anti-African American, we are pro-marriage. And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

Hey, that looks familiar.

[HDH]

And this isn't democracy. This is a populace being manipulated and unaware of what exactly they're voting in favor of.

I don't believe that, necessarily. I think the central issue is that many people in that state are deeply religious, and they want marriage to be between a man and woman, period. If you asked most of them "are you aware this disallows hetero couples from receiving domestic partnership benefits and would that change your decision", I think most would stand by the amendment. And I believe that was the central focus of the legislature in drafting the proposal. They want man/woman marriage, and all else be damned.

That being said, I'm fascinated that this is still even a central issue. (Though it's kind of funny, in light of Biden's comments, that the media is writing that Obama is being "forced" to take a stand on same-sex marriage, for fear that supporting it will drastically hurt him in November).

This passed in NY and really, could the impact be any more insignificant? And I mean that in a good way. This hasn't affected a straight person negatively in any single way whatsoever, yet allowed a dream to come true for the homosexual community.

I didn't think there would be states that wasted the ink to pass such a bill. I ask this honestly, but was there that much pressure on the lawmakers to do this? Was there some uproar to which they were responding?

[the old mole]

And this isn't democracy. This is a populace being manipulated and unaware of what exactly they're voting in favor of.

Public Policy Polling came to the same conclusions:

Marriage Amendment:

Our final marriage amendment poll finds it leading by a 55-39 margin, little change from a week ago when it was ahead 55-41. The final yes percentage will likely be somewhere in the 57-59% range depending on how the undecideds break. Opponents of the amendment had an uphill battle in convincing voters that it was anything other than a referendum on gay marriage, even though it does go a lot further than that. 57% of voters in the state think gay marriage should be illegal (to only 34% who think it should be legal) and it's not a coincidence that number correlates so closely with the 55% planning to support the amendment.

In some sense North Carolinians are voting against their own beliefs. 53% of voters in the state support either gay marriage or civil unions, yet a majority also support the amendment that would ban both. The reason for that disconnect is even with just 24 hours until election day only 46% of voters realize the proposal bans both gay marriage and civil unions. Those informed voters oppose the amendment by a 61-37 margin but there may not be enough time left to get the rest of the electorate up to speed.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/20...imary-poll.html

[HDH]

Polls are stupid.

"Those informed voters" presumably include those that opposed the amendment to begin with? Well of course the percentage would be higher.

The poll basically says a majority of voters would support an amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.



EDIT: And this is my problem with politics in this country to begin with. People are just uninformed. Even among "intelligent" educated people with whom most of us associate. They hear buzzwords, read the easy-to-read papers every day, and assume they understand candidates platforms. "We need health care for everyone, better education, and we need to explore alternate forms of energy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And we must fight terrorism." Wait, HOW? What alternate forms of energy? How do we control costs in the interim? What are your plans regarding domestic oil production? Etc. Etc.

Most people vote based on the same criteria with which they like or dislike reality television stars. Mere perception.

This post has been edited by HDH: May 9 2012, 07:58 AM

[Puckforbrains]

What kills me is that this is the USA. And I am a patriot although I am not always very proud of what it does. This is the country with the ability to be so much greater then all of these other countries is so backwards and ignorant with these topics. There exists a component of powerful RW social engineers who's aim is to decree how we all need to live based on their beliefs.

This.

[Beamer]

[rightbug]

Just frustrating and disappointing that we gave the state legislature to far-right conservatives in what has traditionally been a fairly moderate state (for a southern state) and now their going to do irreparable damage. We're surrounded by Virginia and South Carolina, two of the craziest states in the union, and we won't even be able to make fun of them anymore. Thanks, everyone who voted for teabaggers in 2010. This is why we can't have nice things.

We're going through the same thing in New Hampshire. The Tea-tards road in last election and have been doing significant damage that is going to take a long time to correct once they're gone. Their legislation, almost across the board, has been ideological with no real connection to reality. Voting against the wishes of law enforcement to prohibit the banning of guns in schools and mental institutions; cutting the cigarette tax even though no one was asking for this, costing the state millions; changes to Medicare funding that have resulted in the loss of federal matching funds, again costing the state millions; de-funding legal aid in a state where you do not have a right to a court appointed attorney; shifting funds from public schools to private schools; de-funding infrastructure; redistricting to tilt the board in favor of Republicans in future elections and on and on and on.

The end result of this is a massive tax increase on the local level as the State abdicates its responsibilities. So the Republicans in New Hampshire are making our state dysfunctional *and* raising taxes at the same time :/

[leetchie69]

Polls are stupid.

People who voted for this amendment anyway are stupid.

This isn't an amendment to put a stop sign up on a corner (thanks Modern Family)
They are messing with peoples lives here...it is not right.

This post has been edited by leetchie69: May 9 2012, 10:22 AM

[xcdudesquadloves...]

EDIT: And this is my problem with politics in this country to begin with. People are just uninformed. Even among "intelligent" educated people with whom most of us associate. They hear buzzwords, read the easy-to-read papers every day, and assume they understand candidates platforms. "We need health care for everyone, better education, and we need to explore alternate forms of energy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And we must fight terrorism." Wait, HOW? What alternate forms of energy? How do we control costs in the interim? What are your plans regarding domestic oil production? Etc. Etc.

Most people vote based on the same criteria with which they like or dislike reality television stars. Mere perception.

Read this (its dense as fuck but yeah worth it) Its about the decline of civic organizations in America, which in my personal opinion has lead to an uninformed civic public which leads to this.

There is no definitive evidence that that is true, but this guys work shows a clear link in many regards.

[jkman61494]

Bills like this to me kind of prove that the Tea Party has taken over the Republican party. People argue that that is not the case. That they are just a fringe that gets tv time. But every day passes and you just see more and more examples.

From PA passing a law to call 2012 the year of the Bible.
To Republicans getting ousted in numerous states by far right Tea Partiers
To Arizona's immigration law.
To this in North Carolina.

It's really quite scary.

[LisaLisa]

Polls are stupid.

People who voted for this amendment anyway are stupid.

This isn't an amendment to put a stop sign up on a corner (thanks Modern Family)
They are messing with peoples lives here...it is not right.

And in short order they will begin to feel the consequences of this amendment. And then they'll wonder "What happened? I didn't vote for this." Oh yes, but you did. The general American public across the country have convinced themselves that all politicians are the same, they all lie, and that there's no difference between the parties, so what does it matter who you vote for? So they don't listen to what the candidates in front of them are saying. And now the consequences of several decades of indifference have borne fruit. We have an empty suit running for president (who may well get elected) who will say or be whatever you want him to be on any day at any time. Or we have branded candidates, bought through corporate funding, who have zero interest in serving the public and are only interested in serving their corporate backers or a fringe ideology, and are sitting in seats of power stripping the American people of the laws that aid, protect, and benefit them. And all across the country, Americans are saying, "How did this happen?" You stopped paying attention, f#ck head, that's what happened. And this is the country you helped make. Enjoy!

This post has been edited by LisaLisa: May 9 2012, 12:28 PM

[jkman61494]

That should be posted everywhere because it's so so so sooooo true. I hear it all the time in PA with our governor and legislature.
"but but b-b-but, I didn't know he was going to cut 12% from public education, $150 million from mental health, $100 million from senior care, $300 million from higher education and not tax natural gas a dime, spend $11 million on a voter ID bill, allow oil drilling in state parks and support privatizing state parks for additional gas drilling!"

Well maybe if you took 15 minutes to read his positions and listen to his debates you would have seen it!

You heard this in Wisconsin with Walker, Ohio with their union busting governor, and Jan Brewer in Arizona.

Yet will all of that anger, the result is LESS people going to the polls, allowing the radicals on both sides to rule the day.

This post has been edited by jkman61494: May 9 2012, 12:02 PM

[Charlie]

I have a problem that this was voted on. Fundamental, human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Can you imagine the uproar if a state had a referendum over a one-child policy? They would argue that the right of a couple to have children shouldn't be up for a vote. They would argue certain things are fundamental rights the government can't restrict.

This isn't an issue that should be voted on. Human rights shouldn't be decided by majority rule.

[HDH]

I have a problem that this was voted on. Fundamental, human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right. It's a state sanctioned social arrangement with origins in religion.

[leetchie69]

I have a problem that this was voted on. Fundamental, human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right. It's a state sanctioned social arrangement with origins in religion.

Separation of church and state.

[rightbug]

I have a problem that this was voted on. Fundamental, human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right. It's a state sanctioned social arrangement with origins in religion.

Whether you call it marriage or not, the right to have a domestic partnership with the person of your choosing and to have that partnership recognized by society, I would argue, is a fundamental human right.

[Charlie]

I have a problem that this was voted on. Fundamental, human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right. It's a state sanctioned social arrangement with origins in religion.

Whether you call it marriage or not, the right to have a domestic partnership with the person of your choosing and to have that partnership recognized by society, I would argue, is a fundamental human right.

We are an inherently social species. The need to bond with others is up there with needing to eat and drink. Having those bonds recognized by others is almost equally important. Having a relationship that is not recognized is incredibly damaging.

[Mike B.]

I have a problem that this was voted on. Fundamental, human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right. It's a state sanctioned social arrangement with origins in religion.

Whether you call it marriage or not, the right to have a domestic partnership with the person of your choosing and to have that partnership recognized by society, I would argue, is a fundamental human right.

In terms of legal mechanisms, though, it may not be. Or rather, it is but only under certain circumstances.

I do wonder how some of these amendments would be challenged under federal Constitutional provisions. The lead case on this is Loving v. Virginia, where the Court struck down the Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriages. The Court included some language suggesting that marriage was a fundamental right for all citizens, but struck the law down on equal protection grounds, since race was an impermissible way to distinguish which marriages were legal.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So it would take a bit of a leap to say that the same analysis applies to same-sex marriages, since sexual orientation does not have the same legal status as race in terms of protected classes.

The North Carolina amendment, however, seems suspect on several grounds, in that it is vague and not narrowly tailored to same-sex marriages. If citizens have a "basic right" to marriage, do they also have one to domestic partnerships, same-sex or otherwise? That's an open question, I think. At least in terms of the current state of the law. Not an open question to me.

[Sed]

EDIT: And this is my problem with politics in this country to begin with. People are just uninformed. Even among "intelligent" educated people with whom most of us associate. They hear buzzwords, read the easy-to-read papers every day, and assume they understand candidates platforms. "We need health care for everyone, better education, and we need to explore alternate forms of energy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And we must fight terrorism." Wait, HOW? What alternate forms of energy? How do we control costs in the interim? What are your plans regarding domestic oil production? Etc. Etc.

Most people vote based on the same criteria with which they like or dislike reality television stars. Mere perception.

Read this (its dense as fuck but yeah worth it) Its about the decline of civic organizations in America, which in my personal opinion has lead to an uninformed civic public which leads to this.

There is no definitive evidence that that is true, but this guys work shows a clear link in many regards.

Didn't click the link, but I'm guessing Bowling Alone? Interesting stuff.

[xcdudesquadloves...]

EDIT: And this is my problem with politics in this country to begin with. People are just uninformed. Even among "intelligent" educated people with whom most of us associate. They hear buzzwords, read the easy-to-read papers every day, and assume they understand candidates platforms. "We need health care for everyone, better education, and we need to explore alternate forms of energy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And we must fight terrorism." Wait, HOW? What alternate forms of energy? How do we control costs in the interim? What are your plans regarding domestic oil production? Etc. Etc.

Most people vote based on the same criteria with which they like or dislike reality television stars. Mere perception.

Read this (its dense as fuck but yeah worth it) Its about the decline of civic organizations in America, which in my personal opinion has lead to an uninformed civic public which leads to this.

There is no definitive evidence that that is true, but this guys work shows a clear link in many regards.

Didn't click the link, but I'm guessing Bowling Alone? Interesting stuff.

You would be correct sir. I'm a huge fan of Putnams work.

[rightbug]

In terms of legal mechanisms, though, it may not be. Or rather, it is but only under certain circumstances.

I do wonder how some of these amendments would be challenged under federal Constitutional provisions. The lead case on this is Loving v. Virginia, where the Court struck down the Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriages. The Court included some language suggesting that marriage was a fundamental right for all citizens, but struck the law down on equal protection grounds, since race was an impermissible way to distinguish which marriages were legal.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So it would take a bit of a leap to say that the same analysis applies to same-sex marriages, since sexual orientation does not have the same legal status as race in terms of protected classes.

If we look at the first leg of their argument, however, it would seem to apply:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

They then go on to discuss how this premise applies to interracial marriage but, it would seem to me, their starting point was to establish marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

[Kusand]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

They then go on to discuss how this premise applies to interracial marriage but, it would seem to me, their starting point was to establish marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I would think the term "existence" throws your interpretation out, given that gay marriage is pretty unrelated to our existence as a species. To me, there is a a very procreation-required argument implied there.

I think calling it a "fundamental human right" is overstating the case; I think that there's a much more interesting case to be made on the foundation that it's discriminatory and unjust to deny same-sex couples the rights of opposite-sex couples, and that to use different terminology is "separate but equal."

[Mike B.]

The Loving analysis is famously muddled. In Constitutional law parlance, very generally speaking, laws like this are typically challenged under one or both of two tracks - due process, which involves deprivation of a fundamental right, and equal protection, meaning segregating for prohibited reasons. Fundamental rights can be those that are explicitly enumerated, like speech, or implied, like privacy. Equal protection principles guard against unequal treatment of protected classes - e.g., race.

The Loving ruling is confusing because they start on the due process track, and wind up deciding the case on equal protection principles. I think the latter would be less successful for a challenge, honestly, because sexual orientation has not been elevated to a protected class. Better to argue that marriage or even domestic relations involve some sort of fundamental right. That was what got the Texas sodomy law overturned in 2003, as the Court ruled that private sexual conduct between consulting adults fell under the right to privacy. The Court did, however, throw out some language saying that the law may also have violated equal protection principles, because it outlawed homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual sodomy.

Of course, this amendment in NC is open to challenges on a completely different track, for reasons that I mentioned above - namely, that whoever drafted it is a fucking imbecile. It's terribly vague, and overly broad.

[HDH]

I would think the term "existence" throws your interpretation out, given that gay marriage is pretty unrelated to our existence as a species. To me, there is a a very procreation-required argument implied there.

As is true with almost all of the historical cases relating to marriage. The way they read, it is obvious that judges had not even considered for a second the thought of people marrying someone of the same sex.

[leetchie69]

Obama just took a stand on gay marriage.

For it....is he really the first president ever to support it? (Publicly)

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/presi...x-marriage.html



This post has been edited by leetchie69: May 9 2012, 02:18 PM