All North Carolina members please take a moment to read this
Ahead of voting this Tuesday I wanted to take a minute to discuss two major legal issues within “Amendment One.” It is my hope that understanding the way that the legal side of this issue will severely damage North Carolina as a state will help convince some of you to vote against the amendment. For those planning to vote solely on the basis of religious beliefs, I know the legal reasons why the amendment is bad for our state will not persuade you, but I hope that you can at least find it within yourselves to put the American understanding of the separation between church and state ahead of whatever personal beliefs you hold and refrain from voting at all.
The major legal problem with “Amendment One” is that it flatly violates the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause guarantees all persons the full enjoyment of the laws. In 1967 this was held to apply to marriage. Specifically, anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional as, even though they allowed blacks to marry blacks and whites to marry whites, they denied rights to those who wished to marry outside of their race. This logic, whenever it is eventually applied to gay marriage at the federal level, will codify the fact that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional, and therefore void.
The second legal problem is that whenever a federal law is passed or a Supreme Court case is decided on the issue, the Supremacy Clause will immediately cause all state laws against gay marriage to lose effect. Moreover, any provisions of state constitutions against gay marriage will also lose their effect. Given that North Carolina already does not allow gay marriage, passing “Amendment One” will change absolutely nothing in this state. Let me be clear, passing “Amendment One” will change zero substantive rights in this state as gay marriage will still be illegal right up until the Federal Government says otherwise. What this means for our state then is that passing “Amendment One” will do nothing but publicly declare our ignorance of the laws to the rest of the United States, and heighten any future embarrassment we will suffer at being one of the last states to recognize how wrong it was to ever treat this particular group as second class citizens.
There is not a person in this state with anything to gain from this amendment being passed, and passing it will violate the Constitution of the United States of America. Please take this understanding to the ballot boxes Tuesday.
Original Post by thesuperbex:
Original Post by jules817:
Original Post by crazineko:
Original Post by thesuperbex:
I would honestly love to understand the reasons for voting yes. Religion? Fear? Hate? It just does NOT make sense to me.... at all.
It's the word "marriage", Bex. This is why I think Government should have nothing to do with marriage. Folks have been getting married by their priest and pastor for centuries before Government got involved. I say let folks form unions that are recognized by the government. If people want to be married, they should go through their church.so you don't think I should be able to get "married" since I'm an atheist and it'll be by a Justice of the Peace? Interesting.
I understand how certain people are upset with the term "marriage" but this also impacts a handful of other rights as well (hospital visitation, adoption, taxation, etc) correct? To deny people that right based on sexual orientation is despicable.
I actually don't understand people being upset with the term "marriage." Since when did churches own the word "marriage"? Marriage didn't begin in a church.
Original Post by crazineko:The folks that want to get married would only be the religious folks who believe their union should be recognized through their church and thus by God.
What about the religious folks who want their union recognized by their church but don't believe in god?
Original Post by crazineko:
Original Post by jules817:
Original Post by crazineko:
Original Post by thesuperbex:
I would honestly love to understand the reasons for voting yes. Religion? Fear? Hate? It just does NOT make sense to me.... at all.
It's the word "marriage", Bex. This is why I think Government should have nothing to do with marriage. Folks have been getting married by their priest and pastor for centuries before Government got involved. I say let folks form unions that are recognized by the government. If people want to be married, they should go through their church.so you don't think I should be able to get "married" since I'm an atheist and it'll be by a Justice of the Peace? Interesting.
Those Justice of the Peace marriages are through Government. In these marriages, replace the word marriage with union. I think anyone should be able to form a union with anyone else as long as those folks are consenting adults. Everything that come with marriage currently and all the rights married folks have now would be valid for these unions.
The folks that want to get married would only be the religious folks who believe their union should be recognized through their church and thus by God.
and why exactly do you think the Churches should own the word marriage? And who decides which Churches get to use the word marriage and which don't?
And why can't God dig gay marriages? Maybe it's a different god? What about Jewish marriages? I'm confused... and this is exactly why I have stepped soooo far out of religion.
@Gotborked
The equal protections clause deals only with rights and the equal ability of everyone to enjoy those rights. In 1967, no one was suggesting that any race was being deprived the whole right to marry, blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, but that the enjoyment of that right was diminished given the restrictions on who could marry who. The conclusion then was that telling a group of people (people who wished to marry inter-racially) that they could not exercise their rights in the only way they wished to exercise them was a substantive deprivation of the full enjoyment of their rights. I'm failing to see how pointing out anatomical differences between men and women changes the discussion of the enjoyment of rights.
Original Post by ncxcrnnr:
@Gotborked
The equal protections clause deals only with rights and the equal ability of everyone to enjoy those rights. In 1967, no one was suggesting that any race was being deprived the whole right to marry, blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, but that the enjoyment of that right was diminished given the restrictions on who could marry who. The conclusion then was that telling a group of people (people who wished to marry inter-racially) that they could not exercise their rights in the only way they wished to exercise them was a substantive deprivation of the full enjoyment of their rights. I'm failing to see how pointing out anatomical differences between men and women changes the discussion of the enjoyment of rights.
Because you're claiming a right to something that is based on, and essentially defined by, those anatomical differences. You have a right to enter a marriage. You don't have the right to force people to call something that is not a marriage a marriage.
ETA: Racists knew that biracial marriages would operate and result in the begetting and raising of children in precisely the same way as all-white or all-black marriages did, so they enacted anti-miscegenation laws (laws against race-mixing) banning biracial marriages. Biracial marriages were still marriages, so they were banned. Those bans were struck pursuant to the equal protection clause. Same sex "marriages," on the other hand, were not banned. They simply never fit the definition.
Original Post by crazineko:
I say let folks form unions that are recognized by the government. If people want to be married, they should go through their church.
So - you're willing to refer to a gay couple as "married" as long as it's sanctioned by a church? (There are ones which do that, you know.)
And, in the scenario where unions have all the rights and privelages of "marriage": If couples, straight or gay, who have really only been "unioned" decide to refer to themselves as "married", are religious people really going to start going up them to demand proof of their religious ceremony?
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by crazineko:
I say let folks form unions that are recognized by the government. If people want to be married, they should go through their church.So - you're willing to refer to a gay couple as "married" as long as it's sanctioned by a church? (There are ones which do that, you know.)
And, in the scenario where unions have all the rights and privileges of "marriage": If couples, straight or gay, who have really only been "unioned" decide to refer to themselves as "married", are religious people really going to start going up them to demand proof of their religious ceremony?
So many lolz would ensue. My (gay) friend (in LA) had a great point: "There was nothing 'sacred' about Kim K's 5 min marriage. But that was her right to marry. Where's mine?"
Original Post by gotborked:Because you're claiming a right to something that is based on, and essentially defined by, those anatomical differences. You have a right to enter a marriage. You don't have the right to force people to call something that is not a marriage a marriage.
Well I think the simple resolution to the difference in our views is just that I believe that marriage is far from being defined simply by the genders of those involved. Love and commitment seem like they might be slightly more important. Also, I'm claiming no rights here; as a straight law student, my only interest is in seeing my state not violate the US Constitution in a humiliatingly public fashion.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by crazineko:
I say let folks form unions that are recognized by the government. If people want to be married, they should go through their church.So - you're willing to refer to a gay couple as "married" as long as it's sanctioned by a church? (There are ones which do that, you know.)
Honestly? I don't really care. I just think government should have nothing to do with marriage.
And, in the scenario where unions have all the rights and privileges of "marriage": If couples, straight or gay, who have really only been "unioned" decide to refer to themselves as "married", are religious people really going to start going up them to demand proof of their religious ceremony?
Who cares what they call themselves? Once again, I think a strong distinction should be made between government union and a religious marriage.
Original Post by ncxcrnnr:
Original Post by gotborked:Because you're claiming a right to something that is based on, and essentially defined by, those anatomical differences. You have a right to enter a marriage. You don't have the right to force people to call something that is not a marriage a marriage.
Well I think the simple resolution to the difference in our views is just that I believe that marriage is far from being defined simply by the genders of those involved. Love and commitment seem like they might be slightly more important. Also, I'm claiming no rights here; as a straight law student, my only interest is in seeing my state not violate the US Constitution in a humiliatingly public fashion.
That sounds nice, but how do you enact a law based on love? Do people have to prove to the state that they love each other in order to be married? People throughout the ages have entered marriages for countless reasons (stability, family obligations, wanting a good mother/father for one's children, money, infatuation, status, arranged marriages, etc., etc.), not just love. Yes, a good marriage should include love, but that is certainly not the only reason people get married. And besides, how would you define love? Who gets to define what love is for the law? You'd get about a million different definitions...just ask Haddaway or Foreigner. Better to keep the definition based on something concrete (gender), as it always has been.
Original Post by crazinekoWho cares what they call themselves? Once again, I think a strong distinction should be made between government union and a religious marriage.
Why?
Original Post by crazineko:
So - you're willing to refer to a gay couple as "married" as long as it's sanctioned by a church? (There are ones which do that, you know.)
Honestly? I don't really care. I just think government should have nothing to do with marriage.
That didn't answer my question. Even if government has no involvement in marriage, the question still stands: If a gay couple is married in a church, are you willing to concede they have to right to use the term?
Because, despite your answer, you obviously do care about the circumstances under which a couple can use it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That sounds nice, but how do you enact a law based on love? Do people have to prove to the state that they love each other in order to be married? People throughout the ages have entered marriages for countless reasons (stability, family obligations, wanting a good mother/father for one's children, money, infatuation, status, arranged marriages, etc., etc.), not just love. Yes, a good marriage should include love, but that is certainly not the only reason people get married. And besides, how would you define love? Who gets to define what love is for the law? You'd get about a million different definitions...just ask Haddaway or Foreigner. Better to keep the definition based on something concrete (gender), as it always has been.
You seem to have misunderstood. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of using gender as a barrier to marriage. As you have just shown, that is nothing but arbitrary. I believe the standard should be what is actually announced in law, that the government should not restrict any right for any person, unless their is a compelling, non-religious reason for doing so.
I see no need to use different words to describe the same thing. It's unnecessary. And as long as marriage holds unique rights and privileges in the body of our legislation, the term 'marriage' must and should be used, and equally applied across all genders and orientations.
Original Post by gotborked:
Because you're claiming a right to something that is based on, and essentially defined by, those anatomical differences.
This, I believe, is a very common error in thinking. I think that there is a flaw in considering that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is about sex, per se. Having sex is simply a feature of an orientation. My attractions are based on a multitude of things, and to reduce my orientation to mere boinking is an insult. I will suggest that much of the repulsion expressed toward gay people is by people whose minds immediately take them to the "sex part" of their relationships. I am a heterosexual woman. When you think of me, please consider that my relationships are multifaceted. They include intellectual stimulation, a shared sense of humor, compatible values, and yes, sexual chemistry. It appalls me that we as a culture find it so necessary to separate ourselves from each other based on limited and superficial labels. For goodness sake: If two people find love and are willing to pledge to each other, let them!
For what it's worth, my definition of marriage does not have anything to do with religion or gender.
I'm not sure why other people's definitions are more important than mine.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by crazineko:
So - you're willing to refer to a gay couple as "married" as long as it's sanctioned by a church? (There are ones which do that, you know.)
Honestly? I don't really care. I just think government should have nothing to do with marriage.
That didn't answer my question. Even if government has no involvement in marriage, the question still stands: If a gay couple is married in a church, are you willing to concede they have to right to use the term?
Because, despite your answer, you obviously do care about the circumstances under which a couple can use it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's just it. At that point it doesn't matter what I think. If they want a religious marriage and are able to find a pastor that will conduct and validate one, then that's that. It's between them and God.
Original Post by ncxcrnnr:
That sounds nice, but how do you enact a law based on love? Do people have to prove to the state that they love each other in order to be married? People throughout the ages have entered marriages for countless reasons (stability, family obligations, wanting a good mother/father for one's children, money, infatuation, status, arranged marriages, etc., etc.), not just love. Yes, a good marriage should include love, but that is certainly not the only reason people get married. And besides, how would you define love? Who gets to define what love is for the law? You'd get about a million different definitions...just ask Haddaway or Foreigner. Better to keep the definition based on something concrete (gender), as it always has been.
You seem to have misunderstood. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of using gender as a barrier to marriage. As you have just shown, that is nothing but arbitrary. I believe the standard should be what is actually announced in law, that the government should not restrict any right for any person, unless their is a compelling, non-religious reason for doing so.
No, gender is one thing that is not arbitrary. And to clarify, marriage is not just "defined simply by the genders of those involved," but by the nature of the relationship formed by virtue of the individuals being opposite genders--namely it is the form of a relationship that, in general, can beget and raise children. It is the form of the natural family--the institution that throughout the ages and across the world humanity has found to be the best way to beget and raise future generations. Such relationships (regardless of sexual orientation) can relate in a way that same sex relationships (regardless of sexual orientation), by their very nature, can never do, namely, procreatively.
