Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[AVGWarhawk]

Good points CH.

The marriage penalty I would believe overrides the other "benefits", if folks see them as benefits, in their minds? I would venture to guess the same reasoning as a man and a woman getting married overrides the tax penalty.

As far as the license. The last time I looked at mine was 19 years when my wife and I applied for it.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I will say it again - google "church sued over gay marraige" and do a little research. Gay activists have been suing private citizens of religious conviction and churches trying to force them to "accomodate" gay weddings against their religious beliefs.

You have raised that claim a few times, but that is a specious argument. This is how Canada got around the problem.

Our same-sex marriage law:

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

Religious officials

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Marriage not void or voidable

4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Two people of the same gender do not meet that basic requirement. Your use of the term "openly admitted" implies that I am guilty of some crime. Do you feel that my opinion is criminal?

And you're doing it again. Everybody's attacking poor August. You said I accused you. I said it was repeating what you had said yourself. I used the term "admitted" in that context, and you know it. So you ask if I feel your opinion is criminal, knowing it's not remotely true. As far as I can tell, this constitutes game-playing, not honest debate.

This is the second time you have claimed this and it is still totally false. Now either find where I said anything about denying gays these benefits or admit that you are fabricating this.

You said that "marriage" and "civil union" are one and the same. I provided a link that says differently, and you've ignored it. If the differences listed are true, then not allowing marriage does indeed deny them certain rights and benefits. So, no fabrications. Also I've asked several questions you also ignored.

Then you obviously have no idea what I enjoy or not Steve.

The operative word here is "seems to". It's been observed that you take this same line of defensive argument a lot.

Telling a person that they are making the argument about them then repeatedly posting fabrications about their position sounds pretty darn personal to me. What do any of these unfounded claims of yours have to do with the thread topic?

I've shown that I posted no fabrications. My statements have nothing to do with the thread topic. They're directed at the same ultra-defensive style you always seem to end up at, and have been using for the last several pages.

Well that's your misunderstanding then. Not very objective of you...

Only a reaction to all your recent posts.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Only a reaction to all your recent posts.

Yeah whatever.

[Jimbuna]

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

Pretty much how it is in the UK as far as I am aware.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

You have raised that claim a few times, but that is a specious argument. This is how Canada got around the problem.

Our same-sex marriage law:

Its not a "specious argument". How is that the case - your making the claim, now back it up. You forget - the homosexual lobby was offered basically what you just posted - and refused it.

I made the claim that this was not about equal "rights", but about a forced acceptance upon society. If it were about rights, then the initial civil union equal to marriage offer would have been accepted originally. It was not.

Now, if people are about enjoying the "benefits" of marraige, and are offered those benefits in an "official" way - then they would have accepted them. Thus, logic dictates that the claim of "equal access to benefits of marriage" was in fact a red herring. So then we must ask - what was the real purpose?

Looking at the continual history of gay activism in the most recent years, one can see from a simple search - as I defined - how the religious convictions against gay marriage are in fact under attack by the gay activist community.

Now, I have provided a logical position. Debate and discussion consist of more than the tired old tactics of "Nu huh!' and "That's not right!" - it requires an opposing view - in this case yours - to be explained clearly and concisely, with verifiable facts to back up your position.

So far - pretty much the "pro gay marriage" side of this has done nothing but use playground tactics of "NUHUH!", namecalling and emotional heartstring pulls trying to compare this to the civil rights movement. I mean really - you can put the "tribesman's guide to ignoring facts to win a debate" away - it won't help you.

So here is your chance Bilge-rat - its your turn to represent the left at the grown up table. The right always says we can win in the arena of idea's - here is your shot to prove that wrong. You just gotta use facts to do it. Good luck!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I made the claim that this was not about equal "rights", but about a forced acceptance upon society. If it were about rights, then the initial civil union equal to marriage offer would have been accepted originally. It was not.

"Equal" except for the parts about automatic inheritance, tax-free inheritance and medical incapacitation.

Also I've been looking over some of the discussions elsewhere, and there is some indication that "civil unions" are not allowed in North Carolina. Can you provide clarification on this?

[Tribesman]

"Equal" except for the parts about automatic inheritance, tax-free inheritance and medical incapacitation.

So you mean "not quite"
Check
but don't forget the first one either, as terms and conditions apply since marriage is a legal contract which even covers that aspect.

Literally AVG - the ONLY thing they can't do in NC is get a marriage license in NC. Yes - they might have to do paperwork to get the same legal authority - but they would have to do paperwork to get married. Its not about the "right" - its about making everyone else accept their view.

As plain as can be, he shoots his own arguement down yet still cannot see the truth that puts the lie to his claims.

So far - pretty much the "pro gay marriage" side of this has done nothing but use playground tactics of "NUHUH!", namecalling and emotional heartstring pulls trying to compare this to the civil rights movement. I mean really - you can put the "tribesman's guide to ignoring facts to win a debate" away - it won't help you.

Unfortunately for you its among the very few antis (as in two of you) who are the ones who are coming up with emotional arguements namecalling and playground tactics and it is you who are ignoring facts, even those that you manage to write yourself but not see.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tribesman, inheritance is not automatic when marriage is concerned. Items and wealth need to be Willed. If not Willed in a legal binding manner the state(place he lives) where the individual dies can contest ownership of what is left behind. Marital contract does not assure inheritance. It is never tax free. However, any individual can Will wealth and belongings to people or animals. In divorce marital property is 50/50.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Equal" except for the parts about automatic inheritance, tax-free inheritance and medical incapacitation.

Also I've been looking over some of the discussions elsewhere, and there is some indication that "civil unions" are not allowed in North Carolina. Can you provide clarification on this?

I sure can, Steve - and thank you for being willing to discuss instead of assume.

First, your correct -Civil Unions are no longer an option for homosexuals. It was offered at one time - and they refused it - instead demanding the ability to call it marriage. Due to this being a long running, vocal debate in the state, and the history noted above - this issue came to a head on May 8th. As I stated in an earlier post - the gay lobby chose to push way to hard - and the reaction (whether proper or not) was one much less lenient than it could have been.

Now - on the issue of inheritance. There is no such thing as automatic inheritance in the State of NC. If you die without a will, the estate goes through probate. While I am sure you know, for the sake of others - this means that a judge sits and decides who gets what - and that includes the state as being a "beneficiary" of the estate as well. Yes - if your estate goes to probate, its likely the state may take some of it.

It doesn't matter if your married, or have children. A court will decide how your estate is "divided" - and who can lay claim to it or a portion thereof. So - without a will - whomever you want to leave stuff to is screwed and in for a fight - regardlss of if they are your wife, husband, child(ren), gay lovers or life partners. Thus - to protect inheritance rights - EVERYONE in NC needs a will - regardless of their choice in sexuality.

Now - let me be clear - if you mean "automatic inheritance" in the sense of shared "marital" assets - this DOES exist. One half of the assets of a marriage remain with the surviving spouse. The same can be accomplished via insuring the partner has equal share on the appropriate titles of ownership - aka , home - auto - etc. In essence, the estate is "shared" via law before the death of one partner. Essentially, it functions the same as any business partnership.

Tax free inheritance. NC repealed its estate tax rules in 2009. Prior to that, there were rare situations where an estate would be taxed. After Dec 31, 2009 - you may pass your estate on to a non-spouse without any estate tax. So - this is a total non-issue.

Medical incapacitation. Again - I have dealt with this but I will say it again. You have to go through a legal process involving paperwork to get married. You have to go through a legal process to provide a mendical power of attorney. In fact, the power of attorney is LESS cumbersome, less time consuming and less expensive than a marriage license. Getting a Medical power of attorney provides all the rights and authority as a spouse would have in the case of a medical issue.

This issue in fact is a perfect example of WHY May 8th happened - the gay lobby knows they can get these same rights by going through the same type of bureaucratic hassle that a hetero couple would go through to get married. But they won't. They want it their way and only their way - not just the rights, but the rights delivered on a silver platter, cooked to order, and service with a smile. Everyone else's views be damned.

Hopefully Steve, this has helped clear up some of the confusion. Every "right" a married couple can get - a homosexual couple can also get (with 2 exceptions - the right to call themselves married in the eyes of the State - and the "right" to owe more in taxes due to being married). Yes, they have to do paperwork to get it. But the married couple has to do paperwork to get married - and if marriage was extended to gay couples - they would have to do paperwork for that too.

If this is about rights being denied, would these paths exist? No.

If this is about changing society to meet the demands of a few - would these issues - provably solved already - even be mentioned? Yes.

This is why I say it is not about the rights - because they DO exist. Its about making society change.

************************************************
Now - in the interest of full disclosure - it hit me that this amendment did in fact do one thing that negatively affects the homosexual community. It does not allow local or state government to offer same sex (or unmarried differing sex) benefits to employees. It does NOT prohibit such benefits being extended by private companies, however.

Now, 2 things on this.

Is that discriminatory? No more than it is for an unmarried couple to be denied the same rights and access. I don't say that is right or wrong - its simply a fact.

Secondly, some local governments were offering such benefits (mainly the 3 liberal metro's of the state). Thus those benefits have ended.

The only argument that has any real weight at first glance in this is the health benefits available through an employer are not automatically available to a same sex couple. Yet that is limited only to government employees affected - and they work for the people and the people have chosen not to offer it. Any private business can offer it as they choose. So while the issue is there - on further review it is clear that it is not a true issue. The people "own" the state - and like any owned enterprise, the owners can decide if they will or will not offer such benefits.

Oh - and before someone tries to claim it - remember - gays as wel as straight folks have the RIGHT to decide who they work for - so its not like gays are being forced into government slavery where they are doomed to always be denied partner benefits....

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its not a "specious argument". How is that the case - your making the claim, now back it up. You forget - the homosexual lobby was offered basically what you just posted - and refused it.

I made the claim that this was not about equal "rights", but about a forced acceptance upon society. If it were about rights, then the initial civil union equal to marriage offer would have been accepted originally. It was not.

Now, if people are about enjoying the "benefits" of marraige, and are offered those benefits in an "official" way - then they would have accepted them. Thus, logic dictates that the claim of "equal access to benefits of marriage" was in fact a red herring. So then we must ask - what was the real purpose?

Looking at the continual history of gay activism in the most recent years, one can see from a simple search - as I defined - how the religious convictions against gay marriage are in fact under attack by the gay activist community.

Now, I have provided a logical position. Debate and discussion consist of more than the tired old tactics of "Nu huh!' and "That's not right!" - it requires an opposing view - in this case yours - to be explained clearly and concisely, with verifiable facts to back up your position.

So far - pretty much the "pro gay marriage" side of this has done nothing but use playground tactics of "NUHUH!", namecalling and emotional heartstring pulls trying to compare this to the civil rights movement. I mean really - you can put the "tribesman's guide to ignoring facts to win a debate" away - it won't help you.

So here is your chance Bilge-rat - its your turn to represent the left at the grown up table. The right always says we can win in the arena of idea's - here is your shot to prove that wrong. You just gotta use facts to do it. Good luck!

I will respond soon, although I am a bit busy right now. However, your point on activism is wrong, since it is very easy to grant same sex marriage while still protecting religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will.

Again, this is not a right-left issue, many prominent Republicans back same-sex marriage. Please do not insult me by calling me a leftist.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its not a "specious argument". How is that the case - your making the claim, now back it up. You forget - the homosexual lobby was offered basically what you just posted - and refused it.

You keep making that claim. Show me exactly what was offered.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

You keep making that claim. Show me exactly what was offered.

I think I have documented enough - you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige crowd have made a lot of claims and not backed up one of em. I have discussed and laid out facts - for folks that want to have a discussion - like Steve.

Lets see if you can actually step up and prove YOUR case for once - instead of just trying to keep everyone you disagree with on the defensive.

Isn't it funny - you are so busy you can't answer my points - but you sure can post more to demand more "proof".....

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I think I have documented enough - you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige crowd have made a lot of claims and not backed up one of em. I have discussed and laid out facts - for folks that want to have a discussion - like Steve.

Lets see if you can actually step up and prove YOUR case for once - instead of just trying to keep everyone you disagree with on the defensive.

Isn't it funny - you are so busy you can't answer my points - but you sure can post more to demand more "proof".....

no, you are making a claim, but I cant find a shred of evidence that there was such an offer. As far as I can tell, you are making that up.

[Tribesman]

@AVG

Tribesman, inheritance is not automatic when marriage is concerned. Items and wealth need to be Willed. If not Willed in a legal binding manner the state(place he lives) where the individual dies can contest ownership of what is left behind. Marital contract does not assure inheritance. It is never tax free. However, any individual can Will wealth and belongings to people or animals. In divorce marital property is 50/50.

Run through the various provisions for the states covering people who die intestate
You can do the same when there is a will too.
Leave out all the ones which give it automatic.
Who tops the list with or without a will through probate every time?
How far down the list after spouse offspring parents siblings cousing aunts uncles nieces nephews .........for possible contested ownership does the state get a look in?
Even at the point that the state gets a look in they can only claim to act as custodian of the wealth as anyone with a legitimate claim to the estate can step up at any time.
Though of course for this subjecrt the only issue which matters is who comes top on all the lists.

@haplo

I think I have documented enough - you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige crowd have made a lot of claims and not backed up one of em. I have discussed and laid out facts - for folks that want to have a discussion - like Steve.

Your documentation has been pitiful, just about every claim you have made has been thoroughly trashed, when you are at that stage it is a joke that you can even think of refering to your contributions as
facts.
Unless of course you mean your "facts" have taken such a battering they really are laid out.... cold
Your latest attempt...they can do lots of different paperwork but hey marriage needs paperwork too, really shines brightly like the back of the bus policy.
And then as a bonus you go and trash your own arguement by saying if they didn't have to do all the different paperwork they would have to get the married paperwork....which is what they are asking for.
Haplo you are making a better case for the gays to be allowed marriage than they are making themselves