North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[PanzerJaeger]

Me too.

Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.

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.

[Lemur]

FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change.



Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.

[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.

[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.

[Vladimir]

FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change.



Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.

Now THAT's good research.

[Fragony]

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.

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.

[Fragony]

The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.

I am absolutely not that conservative, but a lot of people still are. People will want to make a point out of it, both sides

[a completely inoffensive name]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545729926.html

[Vladimir]

'bout time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545729926.html

He's always supported it, yeah? Who was that a secret to?

[a completely inoffensive name]

He's always supported it, yeah? Who was that a secret to?

The millions of evangelical blacks who turn out in high numbers to prevent same sex marriage.

[Lemur]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

Yup, and apparently the timing was not planned. Maybe it's good to have a VP who says things when he isn't supposed to?

The declaration was not supposed to come this week. Instead, the White House had planned to dramatically unveil the shift shortly before the Democratic convention. But Obama had been agitated by Vice President Joe Biden’s own endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday, which knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues.

The president expressed his frustration to West Wing officials—some of whom questioned whether Biden had wandered off script or was trying to foster a change in policy—but Obama didn’t take up the issue with his No. 2. Asked about Biden's role in prodding him, Obama acknowledged to ABC "that I would have preferred to do it in my own time, on my own terms."

[Strike For The South]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

ಠ_ಠ

[HoreTore]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.

[Whacker]

Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.

I'm pretty sure Frags gets that. The point is, they cannot "naturally" conceive a child that is a direct product of their combined DNA.

[HoreTore]

I'm pretty sure Frags gets that. The point is, they cannot "naturally" conceive a child that is a direct product of their combined DNA.

I'm pretty sure he gets it too.

The point is, they already have gotten tons of children "naturally". Whether or not society is able to accept gay children or not is no longer relevant. The children are herem and they have the parents they have. If society is unable to treat them properlyas the individuals they are, society needs to change. Fast.

@PVC: one of the first pro-gay arguments in this thread(mine), had nothing to do with "love", it was about personal freedom and that the state or society has no business poking in other peoples priate lives.

Also, the paragraph after the sentence about pro-gay arguments reveals a rather skewed view on what relationships are about, and what people in general think about the relations between people. To put it mildly, you voice the opinion of an extremely small minority, one I would have to assume only consists of yourself.

When this is contrasted with your calls for tradition, nature, etc, it gets weird. I can understand arguments like the ones you have made coming from someone in the majority, but not from a sexual minority, which you are.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm pretty sure he gets it too.

The point is, they already have gotten tons of children "naturally". Whether or not society is able to accept gay children or not is no longer relevant. The children are herem and they have the parents they have. If society is unable to treat them properlyas the individuals they are, society needs to change. Fast.

What about their actual parents, though?

This is an issue - there was even a Hollywood film about it already.

[Strike For The South]

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.

Now it's a party

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"The kids are all right"? Yeah that was surprisingly negative about lesbian parenting, I think it was an independent movie based on people the writer knew though. And could easily be seen as negative about hippie parents. I do think there are some issues with the surrogate type stuff, as people seem to naturally care about genetic links and "real parents" and stuff like that.

So basically like I was saying. The clear and simple solution (legally) is to have gay marriage. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the cultural issues are so simple and clear cut, or that being on the right side of the legal question makes our ideas about the cultural stuff right to.

Simple, with adopted children the family has broken down - the point of marriage is to keep the biologically family together because children generally do best with their biological parents - it's also about linking a father and his children without the need for expensive forensice investigation. However, once the father has sodded off that's already failed, hasn't it? In that case, assuming the mother had the werewithal to nail him down to begin with the marriage is the permenant hook she has in him, because even if they get divorced she's entitled to support.

So there's no particular reason for the adoptive parents to marry; granted there's no reason they shouldn't be married but in the vast majority of cases where the couple are infertile they only find out after trying to have natural children.

I think if parents adopt a kid, and the father sodds off, the mother is still entitled to support. Adoption is a commitment to treat the kids like they are biologically your own, and society should treat it as such.