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)

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!:

AngusJS...
First off - just because its on the internet doesn't make it true.....

The blog you quoted (and yes - the whole site is a blog - ideas and not necessarily facts) - is full of inaccuracies. I will point a couple of them out....

Insurance - NC requires minimum coverage - liability, personal injury and property damage minimums. Nothing in that stipulates it only includes "family members" only are covered. In fact, that would defeat the purpose. You reposted a complete fabrication and totally fell for it simply because it fit your agenda....

Civil Contracts - there is a HUGE difference between a civil contract between two parties for estate and wills, etc and one in which a murder is contracted. If you can't see that - as mookie says - thats just pants on head crazy! There is no reason a judge would overturn that IF the proper procedure has been followed. Wills and estate probates are regularly contested - regardless of whether people are married or not. The family doesn't approve of the spouse/bf/gf so they try to cut her/him out. So somehow because this is going to occur without "marriage" being part of it for a same sex couple is irrelevant. Your "source" has no knowledge of probate court in the state he is pontificating about - and is flat wrong. Its nothing but fearmongering.

Power of attorney - Again pure poppycock. As long as its registered and validly executed, a judge has to have a serious justification to overturn it. As for blood relatives having a "valid" complaint to overturn it - they have a right to try either way - regardless of if its a same sex couple, an unmarried couple, or even a married couple. Terry Shiavo is a perfect example - relatives have a right to input - regardless - and they were married! To claim this somehow weakens the right of anyone to get a power of attorney is simply untrue. Just like the earlier claims.

Seriously - its ok to not like the outcome - but posting lies about it won't do your cause any good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1881898)

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

I don't know, I can't and won't speak for everyone else. I, myself don't care what people do or don't do. It's not my place to judge. I was stating that if I was to say a gay slur then I would be condemned for hating gays and a gay-basher. The same people who would have me arrested for hate crimes have zero qualms for bashing people of different opinions example redneck, bigot.etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1881898)

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

No one had said it. To me it's a really lame analogy but it seems to be popular in the pro gay community. I think that if both sides weren't so defensive and just talked they may be surprised to find out they have more in common then not.

As for if I want to say anything about myself? I'll show you my 4x4 if you show me yours.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1881898)

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?

No, I think I explained myself pretty clearly. My biggest pet peeve in the world is a hypocrite. I live by a rule of Do what you say, Say what you do. If gays want me to respect them and their lifestyle and keep telling me to be open minded then they need to stop with the bashing themselves, it's counterproductive.

Do you think I'm going to sympathize with someone who just called me a inbred redneck? As I said before "I think both sides need to stop with the insults, mudslinging and pointing fingers saying the other is closed minded"

As one person said somewhere: Gays should be allowed to marry too, let them be as miserable as the rest of us.:har:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1881898)

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

What is GT? I googled it and I'm assuming your not saying welcome to Goodyear Tires or Guatemala.

GT = General Topics. That would be this sub-forum.

Quote:

I was stating that if I was to say a gay slur then I would be condemned for hating gays and a gay-basher. The same people who would have me arrested for hate crimes have zero qualms for bashing people of different opinions example redneck, bigot.etc.

Would you? It would all depend on the context it was used in and the intent.
I call people poofs, has anyone condemned me as as hating gays, has anyone suggested I get arrested for calling someone a screaming queen?

Quote:

No one had said it. To me it's a really lame analogy but it seems to be popular in the pro gay community

I will say it, doesn't that ranting pastor from NC talking about the amendment I linked to remind you of Ted Haggard? do you think he is really just another brownhatter with issues?
And that is not "pro gay" its simply "not anti gay".

Quote:

As one person said somewhere: Gays should be allowed to marry too, let them be as miserable as the rest of us.:har:

Well put:up: