47 replies to this topic

[Psych]

I know the Homosexuality thread was recently locked, but I still think this is kinda important.


So for those not in the know, today my state, North Carolina, held it's Primary today to say we're voting for Romney and also a few local positions. But a larger portion of voters also came out in regards to a recent constitutional amendment on the ballot. The amendment would declare marriage as one man and one woman, and even though our state already has declared gay marriage as illegal, this would make it super definitely absolutely illegal.

It just passed.

There has been a lot of news coverage the past few weeks about this, in that it would also affect straight couples. Because of the definition of marriage, it's affecting unmarried couples like those with shared custody rights and it affects things like marital abuse and the ability to prosecute it. Lots of out of state money has apparently been coming in in favor of the amendment as well.

So at least we know why the South is how it is.

I must say it's pretty ingenious of Republicans to schedule it today though. The Republican primary would obviously draw out more Republicans who are likely anti-gay since they have other things to vote for such as Romney, but I have heard that a lot of Democrats came out today as well. But them's the breaks.

I'm pretty sure it only passed by about 10% or so, I think even less.

[Hamlet]

I love how we both posted about this news just in different formats.

Anyway, I doubt that they'd get away with this. Prop 8 was unconstitutional, I'm sure Amendment 1 will be unconstitutional.

[Sangyul]

I don't understand how "banning same-sex marriage" can be made a constitutional amendment. I thought there was an amendment in the constitution already that said that you aren't allowed to discriminate against differences. (14th, if I recall correctly?) So this is just ridiculous to me.

By the way, does anyone know if California repeated Prop 8 already? Because I'm not completely sure where it stands at the moment.

[Hamlet]

Prop 8's been overturned for a little while now; gay marriage is legal in California again.

[Psych]

I love how we both posted about this news just in different formats.

Anyway, I doubt that they'd get away with this. Prop 8 was unconstitutional, I'm sure Amendment 1 will be unconstitutional.

That might be true, but our legislation is about to be controlled by republicans, and I believe it already is, so I highly doubt it/

Plus it's hard to be declared unconstitutional when it now is the constitution. The supreme court will have to deal with that.

Also I only noticed that like a minute after I posted this. I guess I type slowly.

I don't understand how "banning same-sex marriage" can be made a constitutional amendment. I thought there was an amendment in the constitution already that said that you aren't allowed to discriminate against differences. (14th, if I recall correctly?) So this is just ridiculous to me.

By the way, does anyone know if California repeated Prop 8 already? Because I'm not completely sure where it stands at the moment.

Yes, for the country. However, I'm not sure if this is allowed to fall under reserved powers of the state, so since we're amending our constitution it might stand.

Edited by Psych, 08 May 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[Hamlet]

At least your topic has more substance.

I'm hoping it gets taken to the Supreme Court. Discrimination is illegal in the United States; there's no fucking way North Carolina can get away with banning same-sex marriage. It's flat out discrimination. No way around it.

Also, funny quote on Twitter relating to the subject:

[Sangyul]

Prop 8's been overturned for a little while now; gay marriage is legal in California again.

Oh, that's good. I looked it up a while ago, but what I read was kind of vague so I wasn't sure. Good to hear that California cleaned up their act. (For now.)

Edit:

Yes, for the country. However, I'm not sure if this is allowed to fall under reserved powers of the state, so since we're amending our constitution it might stand.

I hope this doesn't become another "states' rights" issue. But in all seriousness, if the country says that "discrimination is no-no", I fail to see why the states in said country would think, "it's all right in our state."

Edited by Folgore Yellow, 08 May 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[Silvercrow]

Well, I voted against it. Not much else to do or say.

It seems like something that will eventually be overturned but just has to be dealt with for the moment. 58-42 is a landslide when you're talking elections. I don't think these sorts of amendments will make it to the Supreme Court--I would think that likely a federal law (or constitutional amendment) would have to happen to really change anything.


It's a tough situation.

[Psych]

I'm waiting for our amendment on slavery. Should be any day now.

[BBM]

Not being from America, I'm not very well versed in how American law works. So can someone clarify for me to what extent states are allowed to have their own laws separate from that of the country? As in, does provincial law supersede federal law in that state, or not?

[Rehab]

An NPR program I was listening to today claimed that national opinion poll results seem to be a bit more in favor of allowing gay marriage, almost the same 58-42 ratio that this was passed by (and definitely much more toward that end than 60-something to 30-something in the 90's,), but that actual votes and referendums seem to tend to end up in favor of the opposite side. Sucks.

I wonder how conservative North Carolina is, exactly.


edit towards BBM: the short version is that it's complicated. The federal government claims certain powers, but basically everything not named in the constitution is kind of assumed to be the state's responsibility, and marriage is one of those things not mentioned, so arguments tend to rage about what the "founding fathers" who wrote the Constitution would have thought and intended. We can amend that Constitution so that it would be something the federal government could specifically pressure states on, but it's really hard.

Edited by Rehab, 08 May 2012 - 08:27 PM.

[Psych]

It's dicey.

States have full control over things like schools and state taxes, while the federal government controls the postal system and money as well as federal taxes. States have differing laws regarding things like gun control however, so while our constitution declares bearing arms a right, states can limit what types of weapons and access to them they have on a different basis.

It's the same way New York and Vermont and Washington can allow same sex marriage, but North Carolina suddenly declare it illegal. Maybe. I think.

This is where the 14th amendment saying all citizens are equal moves in and can pull this into the federal court system. I'm just not seeing how exactly a case would spring forth from this however, but you can be sure one will pop up eventually.

[Black★Rock Shooter]

An NPR program I was listening to today claimed that national opinion poll results seem to be a bit more in favor of allowing gay marriage, almost the same 58-42 ratio that this was passed by (and definitely much more toward that end than 60-something to 30-something in the 90's,), but that actual votes and referendums seem to tend to end up in favor of the opposite side. Sucks.

I wonder how conservative North Carolina is, exactly.

Well, they voted Obama in 2008, but did a complete 180 in 2010.

[Psych]

Well, they voted Obama in 2008, but did a complete 180 in 2010.

A lot of states did that, but you can see the ramifications of it in Wisconsin today, as they also had their primary today and are currently recalling their governor. It's pretty much guaranteed though that Obama's going to win in 2012, I just can't see how Romney could win.

Though I should probably get off of the politics side and keep this on topic.

[Snapdragon]

Thanks, North Carolina. We definitely need to set the country back a couple centuries or so and this is a great start.

Also, wasn't prop 8 declared unconstitutional because California had previously made gay marriage legal, so they couldn't take the right away without good reason? I'm not so sure this is the same situation even though I do consider it discriminatory.

Edited by Snapdragon, 08 May 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[Rewjeo]

Is there even a constitutional argument as to why gay marriage would be illegal? Far and above the most common argument is that the Bible says it's a sin. Beyond all the reasons that's ridiculous that don't need to be gone into here, there is supposed to be a very clear separation of church and state in this country, so citing the Bible for the creation of a law is, well, an issue.

[Snapdragon]

No argument that doesn't logically fall apart when you actually think about it for longer than two seconds. The only reason it's illegal is peoples "ick!" reflex. I think children is the second most used argument. But that falls apart single kids aren't required for marriage and homosexuals can have kids too.

[Sangyul]

Also, I think there has been plenty of research done on the issue of children, that there is no evidence that children that grow up with same-sex parents are less well-adjusted than children who grew up with opposite-gender parents. Honestly, I think it's just people grasping at straws for whatever argument sounds the best, but they're baseless.

[Celice]

No argument that doesn't logically fall apart when you actually think about it for longer than two seconds. The only reason it's illegal is peoples "ick!" reflex. I think children is the second most used argument. But that falls apart single kids aren't required for marriage and homosexuals can have kids too.

Something about government aid for married couples, about whether it should apply to same-sex partners (which is then probably derived from something about non-child-bearing stuff).

As the hippies will say, it's mostly to keep your eyes away from worse things going on.

[1st Mate Bob]

No argument that doesn't logically fall apart when you actually think about it for longer than two seconds. The only reason it's illegal is peoples "ick!" reflex. I think children is the second most used argument. But that falls apart single kids aren't required for marriage and homosexuals can have kids too.

However, if a gay couple has a civil union, and they adopt a kid, it "technically" only belongs to one person. Meaning, if the person who adopted it were to die, the kid would be sent back to the orphanage instead of going to the second parent like it would if they were married. This is one of many MANY reasons why not having marriage equality is BS.