North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[HoreTore]

North Carolina sounds like a very pleasant place to live.

Edit: and the math teacher in me is curious about how the Lemur calculated "94 years"..

[Strike For The South]

North Carolina sounds like a very pleasant place to live.

This is the same state that elected Jesse Helms

[HoreTore]

This is the same state that elected Jesse Helms

Who?

[Whacker]

Who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms

He was a real class act, read the list of what he did. The 16 hour fillibuster to avoid recognizing MLK Jr is one of my favorites.

For the record, NC is a very nice place to live, depending on where you are. It's actually got a lot of displaced northerners around where I live, so it doesn't feel like the south, which it technically is. It's also not too far north where you're getting into the capital heartlands and the cost of living goes through the damn roof, but you have to get past the redneck hell that is Virginia first.

[Lemur]

Edit: and the math teacher in me is curious about how the Lemur calculated "94 years"..

My bad, should have been 96, depending on the months, which are not recorded in an easy-to-find location. So somewhere in the 95—96 range. Can we just say "the better part of a century" and leave it at that?

[HoreTore]

My bad, should have been 96, depending on the months, which are not recorded in an easy-to-find location. So somewhere in the 95—96 range. Can we just say "the better part of a century" and leave it at that?

Haha, most certainly!

[Beskar]

I think marriage should be taken out of the law then people can do whatever they please. Then "marriage" should simple be a union contract agreed upon by both parties, whatever their gender might be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.

Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.

Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.

I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?

It's big legal difference - in Muslim countries your marriages, however many they may be, are seperate. Marriage is still concieved in the same way as in the West, and as I said the Western prohibition again Polygamy is Roman, not Christian.

what is being proposed here is a legal chage, therefore what should be considered is legel precedent.

Not emotions.

I don't care what you try two wrap it up as, it's still a turd. You're stating that a homosexual man can't call his "life partner" his "husband", because YOU say it's not the same thing.

Legally, it isn't. A husband has a wife - not a husband, and a wife has husband - not a wife. That is currently a legal fact in the large part of the world. Further, you do not have a business "wife", you have a business "partner".

It is very clear that the three words are not interchangable, they have different historical connotations and contemporary meanings. Replacing husband and wife with "partner" in legal documents changes chose documents - it removes the gender-identification of the parties, and it removes the requirement that they have a sexual relationship.

I have been reading exactly what you say. Thanks for that good laugh though, I enjoyed YOU calling ME the bigot here. As tribsey used to say, .

Maybe you should try reading what I write. Simply telling me I am a bigot because I oppose Gay marriage is basically being a bigot.

No, you just hate the fact that they want to be treated with the same human dignity, respect, and equality that any other human being should be. Go ahead though, keep talking. I love reading your explanations of why this isn't discrimination or degrading.

I don't hate anyone, except that bastard whoes marrying the girl I have complicated and unresolved feelings about.

I don't believe that marriage can exist without the capability to procreate.

I jumped the gun there, forgetting you are English. Perhaps in England that is how they are viewed and handled. In the US, birth certificates are handled such that the legal parents are listed on the document. See here and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption

See the part where it states an amended certificate is issued and the adoptive parents are assigned the roles, and this becomes the bottom line official document. This does contrast with how open adoption works in some states, in that the certificate is apparently not altered but the records are "sealed" and the child is prevented from gaining access to "identifying" information about their biological parents.

In the UK the original certificate is retained, and an "adoption" certificate is issued - the birth parents go on one, the legal guardians on the second. When you adopt someone you supplant the birth parents and they cease to have a legal claim.

That way, you know who the biological parents are.

I don't deny there is a shred of validity to this, but historically speaking this is an extremely rare occurrence. You're getting into a different area now. Keep in mind that some countries allow marriage between first cousins, such as Japan. While there may be some social stigmas and legal limitations on this in other nations, what is defined as "incest" varies between cultures. I for one happen to find anything where a distant relative marries another to be pretty disgusting, but that's not my decision what others do with themselves.

The original reason for marriage was to establish a legal bond between a father and his children - that is why adoption causes such potential problems, and that is why I consider Gay marriage to be nonsensical.

It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?

There is a simple answer to this question. The Lesbian couple used a Sperm doner, therefore only one of the women in the couple is the child's mother - the father is the sperm doner. That should be reflected on the Birth Certificate.

If the other woman in the relationship wants to be the child's other legal guardian she should adopt it - but unlike a heterosexual marriage she should not be assumed to be a parent, because that is not physically possible.

I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.

If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.

I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function

I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.

I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.

Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.

The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should

If I were a priest, I would happily perform a formal binding cermemony between two men or two women to recognise their relationship within the community. However, I would not call it marriage because a marriage involves one man, one woman, and the hope of children in the future.

If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.

A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.

In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.

[Lemur]

I don't believe that marriage can exist without the capability to procreate. [...] In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.

Interesting. Two friends of mine, a man and a woman, are married. She is infertile due to some bad plumbing complicated by bad doctoring when she was young. My friend knew this when he married her.

They have adopted two children (just this year -- we're all very happy for them). What's your take on the validity of (a) their marriage, and (b) their suitability as adoptive parents?

[PanzerJaeger]

A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.

In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.

Is adoption infidelity as well? What is the matromonial paradigm? Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions?

@Lemur: beat me to it...

[Strike For The South]

and I beat both of you to it

What the hell

Is everyone ignoring me?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

what is being proposed here is a legal chage, therefore what should be considered is legel precedent.

Not emotions.

...
A Gay couple can't have children - one member of the couple can have children using a third party. Dress it up how you want, but the reality is that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are, within the matromonial parradigm, forms of infidelity.

In a marriage you are expected to have children within the couple by coupling with eachother.

But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?

[Whacker]

But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?

People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting. Two friends of mine, a man and a woman, are married. She is infertile due to some bad plumbing complicated by bad doctoring when she was young. My friend knew this when he married her.

They have adopted two children (just this year -- we're all very happy for them). What's your take on the validity of (a) their marriage, and (b) their suitability as adoptive parents?

My take on their marriage is that it was unfortunate, and I am sorry that it was not fortunate. My take on them is adoptive parents is that I can't really comment, knowing nothing about their relationship.

In so far as the legal situation goes though, it shouldn't be any harder for them to adopt whether they can have their own children or not. I happen to think adoption is awsome, and preferable to any of the modern jiggery-pokery doctors perform, better emotionally for child and adult. If I had a wife and I was infertile I would we should adopt, and if she couldn't accept that I would tell her she needed another man.

Is adoption infidelity as well? What is the matromonial paradigm? Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions?

@Lemur: beat me to it...

No of course it isn't.

That child is already here, you aren't creating it. Artifical insemination is exactly the same as having sex with a man when he's gagged and covered in a sheet with a hole for his little man.

The paradigm is man + woman = baby, ergo man + woman = marriage because we want the family untis staying together, rather than forming new more complex units. It's inefficient, it leads to children growing up without parents and that is bad for society.

But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?

The Pro-Gay marriage argument always starts, "but if two people love each other..."

This is not something I am concerned with. If I got a girl pregnant I would offer to marry her, if she said no I would say we could get divorced intwo years if she didn't like me, but in the mean time and afterwards she and the child would be protected by the full force of the law and they would always know who their father was. If she still said no I would assume the child was not mine, because what I'm offering her is a much better deal legally and financially than state-enforced child support allows for.

She'd get more in the divorce, and I would make sure both she and the child were as well provided for as I could manage.

[Kralizec]

I think marriage should be taken out of the law then people can do whatever they please. Then "marriage" should simple be a union contract agreed upon by both parties, whatever their gender might be.

I realise that you're on the "pro-gay" side here Beskar, but really, this is a pointless position to take. The statutory institution of marriage is simply not going to dissappear, not now, not in a hundred years. It's used so often, with so many rights and legal consequenses attached to it, and so utterly ingrained in society that I simply don't see it dissappearing.

I suppose you could re-name the institution as "civil union". Or you could create a new institution with that name that has exactly the same consequenses as marriage but is meant for homosexual couples. Personally I'm more concerned with results than with semantics, so both of these would be okay with me. Apparently the people of North Carolina don't care about semantics either, and simply don't want homosexual couples to have any recognition whatsoever.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.

Yes they are.

People say (and suggest, apparently) the darndest things, don't they?

In any case, since we're talking about the US, forcing a particular church to hold a ceremony when they don't want to would violate the freedom of assembly bit in the first amendment. It might be constitutionally viable for the government to revoke a churches' marriage licence in such a case- I don't know enough about their legal system to be sure, but I'm guessing not.

Oh, and the "historically, marriage means..." or "the dictionary says..." arguments are rubish as far as I'm concerned. Legal terminology follows its own logic that doesn't always sync with reality. See for example legal fiction. As stated before (in response to Beskar) I don't particulary care about semantics, but in that vein I don't understand why other people make such a huge deal out of it.