SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Gay marriage ban passes in NC

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Gay marriage ban passes in NC (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=195041)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1881590)

Really? Where was that?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=article+quote

I'll admit I misremembered some of the events. It didn't get as far as I thought I remembered, but the point is still the same.

you know these events only show how out of touch American values are with the rest of the western world.

The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.

you have posters here that argue that they have a constitutional right to walk into any business with a loaded concealed firearm and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. :o

you have other posters who argue that they have the constitutional right to have no medical insurance whatsoever and the governement can't restrict their freedom to go bankrupt from medical fees. :o

yet you have posters who argue that it is perfectly all right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they are allowed to get married. :doh:

grow up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1881611)

The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.

Funny I don't remember reading that in my copy of the US Constitution nor do I see anything in there about staying in sync with some imaginary group that you call the "Western World".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1881611)

you know these events only show how out of touch American values are with the rest of the western world.

The "rest" of the western world?

What part of the world is that? Europe, where the goal is to see who can reach utter poverty first? Yep, that place has the moral high ground let me tell ya!

Or perhaps you meant Mexico - where the entire country except for Mexico City is against same sex unions....

Maybe you meant Eastern world.....

Japan, S. Korea, Tiawan - all say no to homosexual unions... Well - guess you didn't mean the far east after all.

About the only "western" areas that really "promote" this other than europe are Canada (where if it wasn't 2 guy's boffing, moose would be involved sinply because what else is there to do up there!) and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea.

Quote:

The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.

Yet isn't that the whole complaint of your earlier referenced "western world" - that we are too involved in everyones business? So we do something at home you don't like and you complain about that too!

Quote:

you have posters here that argue that they have a constitutional right to walk into any business with a loaded concealed firearm and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. :o

No - you had ONE person vote in a poll that way.... and no one HERE argued FOR that right.....

Quote:

you have other posters who argue that they have the constitutional right to have no medical insurance whatsoever and the governement can't restrict their freedom to go bankrupt from medical fees. :o

It has nothing to do with "the freedom to go bankrupt" and you know it. If you want to be taken seriously, making up extravagent lies won't help your cause.....

Quote:

yet you have posters who argue that it is perfectly all right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they are allowed to get married. :doh:

What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is up to them. What your saying is that 2 consenting adults - or in this case - 39% of the citizens can tell the other 61% what is and is not acceptable. That isn't how the STATE of NC is set up to be governed.

Quote:

grow up.

Come with facts to a debate, or don't come at all.... The tiny little tantrum at the end just doesn't seem to make your argument any more "adult" since it lacks facts and plays on emotionalism and strawmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1881470)

@Rilder - personally I would like to see government out of marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between whomever and howmanyever - but let marriage stay a religious institution with no state or federal concern. Unfortunately - both the state and federal gov't have a monetary interest in marriage - so that won't happen.

see, personally this is why I think it's AT LEAST immoral got the government to do this, If not unconstitutional. It's IMO a HUGE overstepping of the Governments grounds. And to deny people civil unions solely based on their sexual orientation? In all other terms this is discrimination. Personally There needs to be a total de-Institutionalization of the secular thing called "marriage", because it's a religious thing. That way, when church groups deny gays and people they don't like marriage the government isn't part of it...and allow civil unions or whatever you like for all people. Essentially, make it where when ANYBODY signs the papers they are "in a union" to the eyes of the government...and then you can do whatever you like with any church or Spaghetti monster after.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1881633)

so...if the good voters of NC had decided that the only valid union is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, you would have no problem with that?

There are certain issues of basic human liberty which citizens have to stand up for if we are to evolve as a society.

In the 50s a majority of voters in NC supported strict racial segregation laws. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as unjustifiable now as discrimination based on race was back then. Opponents of Gay marriage are the racists of the 21st century.

Opponents of gay marriage should grow up and mind their own business...maybe if they stopped marrying their cousins, they would be able to think...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1881633)

and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea.

No, it doesn't. Unless you believe homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And if you believe that, it's pants on head retarded to use it as an argument against gay marriage. You know, marriage. A monogamous commitment. Not promiscuity. A committed relationship between two people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1881714)

Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1881775)

Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?

I'm saying that Haplo is attributing the higher incidence of STDs to the social acceptance of gay marriage in South American countries. I'm also saying that monogamous relationships would necessarily reduce the rate of STDs. He's arguing out of both sides of his mouth - saying on one hand that gay people have a higher rate of STDs since they're promiscuous sexual deviants, but then also using it as an argument against them when they want to show how they're not promiscuous sexual deviants.

Besides, he also engages in the classical "correlation = causation" fallacy.

Mookie....

You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...6/836.abstract

How about the 2007 one that states heterosexuals would need to have 3x as many partners to create the same epidemic that currently is rampant in the homosexual community?

http://www.science20.com/news_accoun..._behavior_data

Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...

Quote:

At the National STD Prevention Conference on Wednesday, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) released some astonishing data regarding rates of infection among MSM (Men who have Sex with Men).
The data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_g...vstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/...ssrelease.html

The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts.

Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR.

The argument that this is about "love" is disproved right here. I have a capacity for love that isn't limited to one person. Ask a parent. I love my son with all that I am - but when his sister was born, I didn't love him less because of it - nor do I love her any less than him. Why is it somehow perfectly reasonable for me to love both my kids - but its "beyond the pale" for me to love more than one adult? My daughter's mother and I are good friends - I love her deeply and always will. That doesn't stop me from building other relationships. So who is to say I can't be polyamorous? Who can FAIRLY define marriage as limited to only 2 people? See - the LGBT crowd doesn't want to ever go there - because it doesn't fit their agenda. Not every relationship or marriage is monogamous. So trying to make that claim also fails.

I previously stated my personal opinion, but let's now look at the legality.

It is true that a state may amend its own consitution, based on its rules and procedures. However, it is also true that the constitution of individual states is subject to the federal constitution and the Bill of rights. The Bill of rights exists specifically to protect minority rights.

In California, Proposition 8 was adopted a few years back which has basically the same wording as the NC amendment. Since then a court case has been winding its way up the federal courts (Perry v Brown) on the legality of Prop 8.

In the last ruling in feb. 2012, the U.S. court of appeals held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, in part, because it violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In effect, the Court ruled that there was no justifiable interest for the State of California to remove rights from a class as a whole. I am summarizing since the decision itself is 120 pages long.

When it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be difficult for justices to come to a different conclusion so it is only a matter of 5-10 years before gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1881633)

About the only "western" areas that really "promote" this other than europe are Canada (where if it wasn't 2 guy's boffing, moose would be involved sinply because what else is there to do up there!)

Here in Canada we are quite proud of our hip and consenting moose population.:03:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...e_face_001.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov (Post 1881553)

Of course, if gays want a traditional marriage, they should just bribe a priest. Catholic priests are exceptionaly cheap.

:har::har::har:

For the record, U-Crank - I think Canada isn't all bad. After all, you gave us celine dion - and she is still hot!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1881516)

The decision is fine, the religious argument in motivation is not. "God's own law" - just three words and I already felt sick again.

The net effect still is positive, and that is what counts.

:rotfl2:

From Popehat:

Quote:

...Self-declared and contractual domestic partnerships would become unlawful.
Despite the existing statutory definition of marriage as between a "male and female person", a number of same sex (and opposite sex) couples have done everything they can to create a relationship which gives them, to the extent possible, the benefits of marriage. I will interview such a couple later in this series of posts.
This is done through wills, grants of power of attorney for health care and financial decisionmaking, and, where employers offer it, declarations of domestic partner status granting access to employer-provided health and insurance. A number of local governments in this State offer such benefits to declared domestic partners of their employees, including the County in which I reside. If the Amendment passes, these benefits will become unlawful immediately.
This is because the Amendment goes much further than existing law. It states that the only "domestic legal union" that shall be "valid or recognized" in North Carolina is an opposite sex marriage. The term, "domestic legal union" is not defined, but it surely includes within its sweep the arrangement discussed above. Such unions will not be "recognized" (meaning to have their existence acknowledged) by any court.
This means that, for domestic partners of employees of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham County, the city of Durham, Greensboro, Mecklenburg County, and Orange County, a list that includes two of the State's five largest counties, and two of its five largest cities, all such benefits will end immediately. They may also end, or become much more difficult to enforce, for domestic partners of private employers, many of which offer such benefits as an employee recruitment tool.
I'll discuss this further below.

I thought the Amendment doesn't prohibit private contracts?

What's a contract?
At its simplest, a contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to exchange goods or a service for money or other goods or service ("valuable consideration"). If Wimpy promises to Bluto that he will gladly pay five dollars on Tuesday for a hamburger today, that's a contract, which the law will enforce regardless of the fact Wimpy and Bluto are enjoying a romantic relationship, whether or not this Amendment becomes law.
However, a court will not enforce a contract in which what's promised is found to be against the public policy of the State of North Carolina. Such a contract is void. The classic example of a contract void as against public policy is a contract to commit murder for hire, but there are many other such exceptions in North Carolina, such as a contract to repair a home entered by an unlicensed general contractor, or an agreement to waive liability for negligence against a builder.
If this amendment passes, expect lawyers to argue that all sorts of contracts which now pass without objection are void as against public policy, because they're founded on an unlawful domestic union. I'll expand on this below.

Now, what isn't a contract?

A last will and testament is not a contract. A will can be revoked at any time, regardless of promises made. If this Amendment passes, any will in which one member of a same sex couple devises his or her property to the other will be open to challenge by spurned relatives, who can claim that the will was procured through "undue influence," in other words the love and affection between a couple engaged in a domestic relationship which is constitutionally enshrined as unlawful in North Carolina.
A power of attorney, whether for financial purposes or for health care, is not a contract. State run hospitals may be required to disregard a health care power of attorney where power is held by a domestic partner. Suppose Wimpy suffers a massive stroke and goes into a coma. Wimpy has told his domestic partner Bluto that he does not wish to be fed through a tube, unable to enjoy hamburgers as a living vegetable. Wimpy has even given Bluto a power of attorney over all health care decisions, so strongly does he feel about this. If Wimpy is hospitalized at the University of North Carolina hospitals (a state facility), Wimpy's niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto's decision on the grounds that the law does not "recognize" a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.
Of course, even facially valid contracts, as discussed above, will be subject to challenge as against public policy, or procured through undue influence, if this Amendment passes.

Okay. The Amendment jeopardizes estate planning and health care decisionmaking for unmarried couples. Does it have any other effects?

Oh yes it does.

Any adoption, or custody arrangement, where the child enters a same sex household is automatically suspect.

North Carolina, like every other State, gives social workers and courts the power to remove a child from a household when it is deemed to be "in the best interests of the child". While it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to produce children, such couples adopt children frequently, particularly in States where they can marry.
If Amendment One is ratified, it will become much easier for police or social workers to justify seizing such children, in the "best interests" of the child, even if the child was adopted in another State by a same sex couple lawfully married in that State, because such relationships are against the public policy of North Carolina. Likewise, it will be easier for District Court Judges to justify such seizures. An appellate court may reverse such a decision, but when was the last time you paid for an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina? It isn't cheap.
If Amendment One passes, my advice to same sex couples married in other states, particularly where children are involved, would be never to bring those children to North Carolina. North Carolina has lovely mountains and beaches, but so does Maryland and so do many others states which don't enshrine discrimination in their Constitutions.
These considerations also apply to custody and visitation for biological parents of children who later enter same sex relationships (it happens). It will be much more difficult for those parents to establish custody or gain visitation rights in North Carolina, no matter how good they are as parents.

You're in good hands. But maybe you shouldn't drive a car in North Carolina.

Want to know how Amendment One will affect automobile insurance in North Carolina? Vote for it and see.
The typical automobile liability, or uninsured / underinsured motorist, insurance policy, provides coverage to "You", the policyholder, or "any family member", meaning your child or spouse. Under North Carolina law "foreign" insurance policies (meaning those written in other states) are construed under the law of the State where the policy was written. So if one spouse (in a same sex marriage) is driving from Massachusetts to Florida and has an accident in North Carolina on Interstate 95, he or she will be covered under his or her spouse's Massachusetts auto insurance policy, written in a State where same sex marriage is the law of the land.
But will North Carolina courts enforce an out-of-state contract which violates North Carolina's Constitution and public policy? Can they "recognize" a contract founded on a marriage which the State Constitution says is unlawful? Partners in same sex marriages are not "family members" in North Carolina.
Again, if Amendment One passes, I wouldn't advise anyone married lawfully in a same sex marriage from another state to test that question. Don't drive a car in North Carolina...

It's a needless law that does no good, only harm. But (most) of the people being harmed are gay, so it's completely acceptable.

I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngusJS (Post 1881825)

From Popehat:

I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.

I've tried really hard not to say anything in this thread because I'm "new" to posting here. I've been following this topic on a number of forums and the one thing they all have in common is bashing. How is it that people who say they just want people to be open minded are the first to begin slinging insults? inbred, marrying your cousin, redneck, saying hetro's are worried that they might be repressing they are gay so they attack gays, bestiality, bigots. I can name more but you get the idea.

I find it ironic that gays hide behind laws for "hate crimes" but they are the first to call people out with insults and hate, why is that?

To use one example: Gays say that the reason people are homophobic is because they are deep down gays themselves. So using that same analogy does that mean Gays are worried deep down inside they may be inbreeding rednecks who secretly have subscriptions to Guns and Ammo? and Offroad 4x4 ?

I think both sides need to stop with the insults, mudslinging and pointing fingers saying the other is closed minded and stop forcing your values and preferences onto me.

Get's off soapbox and ties a 88mm shell to it tossing it over the side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngusJS (Post 1881825)

I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.

I got news for ya Dude. In 100 years you won't be looking and shaking any more than today's bigots. :yep:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halgarre (Post 1881846)

I've tried really hard not to say anything in this thread because I'm "new" to posting here.

Welcome to Mos Eisley Cantina...aka GT. :salute:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1881783)

Mookie....

You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...6/836.abstract

1980 studies are 32 years old, and pretty irrelevant. All due respect, and whatnot.

Your second link is worthless as evidence to your position, as it's stated in the study that "This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors". I.e. it has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with biology. The fatal flaw for you is when the study says "Gay men are therefore far more susceptible to the spread of the virus through the population, even with the same numbers of unprotected sexual partners." So why exactly are you quoting that study again?

Quote:

Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_g...vstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/...ssrelease.html

Same as above.

Quote:

The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts.

At the risk of sounding like a playground, no, YOU are. You're ignoring the effect that MONOGAMOUS, SINGLE PARTNER relationships have on the spread of STDs. You're quoting studies that have nothing to do with the number of partners and everything to do with the biological differences between anal and vaginal sex. If that's your area of interest, I can provide plenty of links to heterosexual anal sex studies. Primarily from redtube.com :rotfl2:

Quote:

Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR.

because:

http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articl...=1224996790467

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halgarre (Post 1881846)

I find it ironic that gays hide behind laws for "hate crimes" but they are the first to call people out with insults and hate, why is that?

Do you really think that everyone who speaks out in favour of same- sex marriage is gay? Do you think President Obama is gay?

Quote:

To use one example: Gays say that the reason people are homophobic is because they are deep down gays themselves.

Where exactly in this thread has anyone said this? Do you have anything you want to say about yourself?

Quote:

I think both sides need to stop with the insults, mudslinging and pointing fingers saying the other is closed minded and stop forcing your values and
preferences onto me.

What does that mean? Are you worried that if consenting adults are allowed to marry who they wish, that it will contaminate the rest of the population? Do you think homosexuality is a disease?

welcome to the GT by the way.:arrgh!: