North Carolina Votes to make gay marriage unconstituational

[Vampyr]

In case you haven't heard Amendment 1 passed yesterday in North Carolina.

This was the language on the ballot, and reflects what will be added to the constitution:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

So sad. And embarrassing. I feel bad for everyone who lives in North Carolina, to have something so riddled with hate and intolerance stamped onto their most important document as a reflection of what that state stands for.

This is why gay marriage shouldn't be left up to the states, because they'll actually go through with crap like this. The rights of a minority group should -never- be voted upon by the majority. It makes no sense, and it isn't fair.

[Typhoid]

This is why gay marriage shouldn't be left up to the states

I suppose that's part of the problem when you try to found a country on the idea that the states can still hold more power than those that run the states as a whole.


Wait, question though:

[I haven't done prodding, or any fact-things. I just think it has the potential for comedy from the top of my head, but I might be remembering like an idiot.]

So when California legalized pot, didn't your country-wide-government sort of step in and say "Hey, wait a minute. You can't vote on that shit. We're one country, here. Not 50 individual states. Pot is still illegal. You can't just change things like that. We're going to undo that law."

But when North Carolina makes gay marriage unconstitutional it's "Hey, they're allowed to if they vote for it. It's their state. We're 50 individual states, not 1 united country. They're totally allowed to change things like that. We can't undo that law."

I know one is drugs and the other is a dick in a butt - but I still find it humorous.

The rights of a minority group should -never- be voted upon by the majority. It makes no sense, and it isn't fair.

While I definitely agree with the how-fucking-unfair-that-is aspect, there isn't really any other way to hold a vote. You can't just let those people affected vote - because then everything would pass 100% of the time, unless you get some really confused people.
The problem is when those people are bigots or racists - Then they become the majority, which only makes the area more like that - because everyone negatively effected will move away, or die or something.

The ignorance that disgusts me with things like that is there are some who vote for things like that simply because they don't want it taking place in their area. "I don't hate gays/muslims. I just don't want to see fags/a mosque near my children, (because I'm afraid to let my child be influenced by anyone other than me and people like me)."



On the one hand that state is doing exactly what it's allowed to do. Make it's own laws. You're the United States of America. Not the United Country of America. While I agree that it's dumb, retarded and all of that - the only thing that will curb something like this happening is if you throw out the fact states are essentially allowed to be their own little nations in one Union, and form an "actual" country with unified civil rights that can't be overturned by states if the people of that state hold a vote.

I just mean for the sake of "rights" and all that; equality. Marriage is something that should be country-wide, and sexually-ambiguous.

[Vampyr]

The reason things are still done at the state level is because it would be enormously inefficient for the federal government to handle them, like building roads, or schools or managing local law enforcement.

I believe the California pot thing had to do with them creating a state law that violates an existing federal law. There's no existing federal law saying gay marriage is legal. But there should be - that's my point.

The supreme court can still fix this if they decide it's unconstitutional to make gay marriage illegal, which it is.

And my point was that no one should be voting on this. A persons civil rights should not be up for vote. The supreme court needs to up and say states can't do this, and a law should be passed making gay marriage legal nationwide.

States here are not a nation unto themselves. Federal laws and rulings trump state laws and rulings every time. If a state gets out of line, which in my opinion they have, the federal government can knock them back into place. It's happened before, and it can and will happen again.

[Typhoid]

I was agreeing with you.

[Bond]

I strongly disagree with this nonsense.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I was agreeing with you.

I know, I was just explaining that the states aren't quite as powerful as you make them out to be. We still have a very powerful central government. The Federalists won that battle.

[Professor S]

I personally disagree with the decision, but maintain that leaving the decision up to states is the best solution. The larger the institution that decides social policy the bigger the mess it creates. EX. Abortion. 30 years since Roe vs. Wade and it is still a complete political disaster because the people never felt they had a decision on how their society defines the issue. My fear/hope (I am conflicted, obviously) is that this will force a court decision with national consequences. I just hope it doesn't end with an abortion-type of decades long controversy.

In the end, people can vote with their feet and dollars. North Carolina will miss millions of dollars in revenue created by gay tourists and residents and the youth of the state will force eventual social change. An imperfect solution, but I think it would be the most efficient solution.

This sums up my personal opinion:

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I personally disagree with the decision, but maintain that leaving the decision up to states is the best solution. The larger the institution that decides social policy the bigger the mess it creates. EX. Abortion. 30 years since Roe vs. Wade and it is still a complete political disaster because the people never felt they had a decision on how their society defines the issue. My fear/hope (I am conflicted, obviously) is that this will force a court decision with national consequences. I just hope it doesn't end with an abortion-type of decades long controversy.

In the end, people can vote with their feet and dollars. North Carolina will miss millions of dollars in revenue created by gay tourists and residents and the youth of the state will force eventual social change. An imperfect solution, but I think it would be the most efficient solution.

Yeah, I wasn't planning on moving anyway, but now I would definitely never live there. They're going to also lose a lot of talented and skilled people who are either gay or just morally opposed to that decision.

I still think having civil liberties forced on a state by the federal government is better than a state forcibly taking away the rights of people who live there. Those people have virtually no voice and can't fight back.

I'm more afraid of a world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen. Is abortion still a political clusterfuck? Yeah, but it would be regardless. I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I still think having civil liberties forced on a state by the federal government is better than a state forcibly taking away the rights of people who live there. Those people have virtually no voice and can't fight back.

This is the argument that I personally agree with. Ideally, I just wish everyone would wake up and stop worrying about other people do in their personal lives, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I'm more afraid of a world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen. Is abortion still a political clusterfuck? Yeah, but it would be regardless. I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

We have a pretty good idea of what would happen just by measuring public opinion state by state. In most cases abortion would be legal in some form or another, and in those few that ban abortion residents would likely travel to a state that didn't have a ban.

And by the way, conservatives aren't the only ones who attempt to deny rights. Keep in mind, a conservative never voted for firearm regulations and rarely ask for tax increases (denying people the right to a percentage of their property).

Government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away (we are born with rights). This is why I have always had issues with big government whether coming from the left or the social conservative right. The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

[Professor S]

Another concern I have is that exercised public opinion is not with gay marriage at the moment, and if the Supreme Court overturns a state ban on gay marriage a Constitutional Amendment "defining" marriage is not an impossibility. In the end, I think time is always on the side of tolerance if you allow people to get there themselves, especially in the age of the internet where all cultural evolution appears accelerated.

[Typhoid]

I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

Except for the gay people in North Carolina.

If a state gets out of line, which in my opinion they have, the federal government can knock them back into place. It's happened before, and it can and will happen again.

Logical question from an outsider (I'm not down with all of your countries loopholes, I've got too many of my own dumb ones to think about).

So keep in mind that in no way am I disagreeing with you, or directing this question/comment specifically at you.

(Removing the option of Obama giving nation-wide marriage for all, and making it Federal Law) - say Obama overturns their state decision to make gay marriage unconstitutional. He can probably do that, He's the president.
But they can just hold another vote to make gay marriage unconstitutional, can they not? Sort of like an endless cycle of people having to fight for basic democratic rights in their own country.

And by the way, conservatives aren't the only ones who attempt to deny rights. Keep in mind, a conservative never voted for firearm regulations and rarely ask for tax increases (denying people the right to a percentage of their property).

Not to open a can of worms, but (as calmly as possibly can be taken); you can't seriously be comparing firearms and tax to equality rights in marriage.
One is the right to defend yourself from a British Invasion, the other is the right to be treated like a human being in their own country.

Obviously they are both the same in the sense that they are both denying a specific group a certain thing - but I wouldn't compare McDonald's to BBQ, but both are "food", you know.
Also, you're right. Conservatives don't ask for tax increases.

If we're comparing the things Conservatives and Non-Conservatives say as defining them as a whole - I believe it was a Conservative who proposed a Moonbase. Maybe that's why they want more money, and hate gays, and want guns. Gays can't reproduce - so there's no use for them repopulating a Moonbase. You need the guns incase you find any Moon aliens up there. Nobody's ever been to the moon, you know. And you obviously need all the poor people's money to fund the Moonbase.
It's got to be poor people's money because the rich people are the ones going to be sent off to the Moonbase. Then you'll have the straight, Republican state of MoonAmericaBase, and the gay nation of the USA, with all the poor fags that got left behind.
I'm sure you can exactly tell where I smoked the joint and turned that into a bit.

Anyways, everyone's really saying the same things and just picking apart semantics. Nobody here is against gay people having the rights as everyone else does - just who that should be up to, and how it should be achieved.



----------
Edit:
100% non-related:

In the end, I think time is always on the side of tolerance if you allow people to get there themselves, especially in the age of the internet where all cultural evolution appears accelerated.

Time is relative, hombre! We now live in a world where a letter that would take a month to get to another country, and another month to get back now takes less than 20 seconds via the internet to have both people put in on the conversation [and isn't superfuckingexpensive like long-distance calling when it was the only option to writing a letter].
I just think that's neat, is all. I'd never thought of the fact that cultural evolution will maintain a steady pace of superfast from now until the end of time. Nobody has to wait for information anymore, and everyone has the availability to share ideas and opinions with other people across the world. Everyone has the answer to every current and past question right in their pocket. You no longer really need to know anything, only how to access the information. (I used to remember phone numbers. Now I remember that if I press down, and "2" twice it calls Dylan).
Everything can be talked about worldwide within a minute or two, and the youth will begin to form their own worldwide culture composed of little pieces of every other culture; something we as non-internet-at-birth-ers probably can't conceive as to how different it will really be. The world will become one cultural sphere connected at the hip, instead of 200 tiny coloured blotches still making 'dumb pole' and 'a nun, and a priest' jokes, while scribbling down a 2-month early birthday card to send to Grandma back in the old country.
BUT I DIGRESS

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Not to open a can of worms, but (as calmly as possibly can be taken); you can't seriously be comparing firearms and tax to equality rights in marriage.
One is the right to defend yourself from a British Invasion, the other is the right to be treated like a human being in their own country.

Where to begin with this comment?

1) The right to bear arms has nothing to do with "British Invasion". The second amendment is about giving citizens the right to bear arms because the government must have a military, and that military could turn against free citizens.

Penn and Teller explain this quite well:



And my comment about "not just conservatives" was never meant to absolve conservatives of denying rights, it was to point out that government, right or left, can ONLY DENY RIGHTS and can not give them. Any law that is passed, in some way or another, removes individual rights to some degree. IMO, many laws are necessary. I certainly don't want to let anyone have the right to murder. But many are not necessary, and are therefore bad law because an unnecessary law unnecessarily denies people their rights.

2) Being able to use the term marriage to describe your civil union is not the dividing line of human rights. regarding the NC issue, no one I've heard is talking about denying gay people rights related to their union such as tax benefits, etc. They're denying gay people the ability to define their union with a word they want to reserve only use for men and women. That's the sum total of their ridiculous exercise in semantics.

Again, I disagree with these people, but let's not exaggerate the consequences of states making these decisions as opposed to federal governments.

[Bond]

I'd also like to add I think we would be very disappointed with the outcome if a gay marriage case went to the Surpeme Court in its current rendition.

[Typhoid]

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with "British Invasion".

Even though I only put that in there for a tongue-in-cheek lark; You needed the militia to defend yourself from the Redcoats because you didn't have a significant standing army at the time (compared to the British). The militia was your army. Now that your country has a massive professional army, and it's hundreds of years in the future, I think the militia thing is a little passe - unless you guys want to pick and choose other archaeic few-hundred-year-old things to live by. I haven't been to a good witch burning in a while. I also haven't stolen any land from any Indians lately - I could probably use a whole lot more of that in my life. I also believe this is a man's world, and we should take back the vote from those fucking dames. That's how the founders wanted it, damnit. If Jesus wanted it any other way he would have told them to found the country like that initially.

The civil war is over - The whole "The government can turn on the citizens, so we need a constant militia" thing is a pretty 3rd world outlook. You're not in Libya or Uzbekistan. There are no child soldiers; and if there are it's only because guns are legal and they stole them from their parents. Your army will not open fire on your people, unless you're a college student linking arms with other college students (too bad those kids didn't have guns!).

Plus I doubt many gays have weapons (Even thought they are Godless heathens, you'd think those Communist-pinkos would be all over having a shitload of guns)- I know they can openly serve in the military now; but I don't think they've got it in them to steal tanks and planes to start another civil war over the civil rights of a group of people; so I think you're good on the guns and militia thing.
I'm pretty sure your massive professional army is there to defend you - and if it did turn on you; I doubt a militia of people with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns could really compete with the biggest professional military on the planet, which has the most modern tanks, planes, drones, and nukes.

(That is joke, friend)


Seriously, I notice you didn't address the fact you were comparing gun ownership to the rights of a group of people. It's like comparing guns to suffrage, or slavery. Same shit, different era. And it will be equally as silly in retrospect. Like a "I can't believe my great grandfathers-ish generation was against women voting. That's fucking offensive" thing.

But many are not necessary, and are therefore bad law because an unnecessary law unnecessarily denies people their rights.

Well I can't not agree with that! Everyone will agree with that. Everyone's idea of a bad law is different though - and your country is so large, and vastly divided (you had a war between two parts of your country BECAUSE they are so different - most countries split up after that) that it's nearly impossible for your entire country to come to a majority decision on anything. (I even bet if you asked that to your people, half would say "we totally agree on a lot of things, you asshole *finds examples*", and the other half would say "That's totally true. We can never agree on anything. It really slows the progress of the country"

no one I've heard is talking about denying gay people rights related to their union such as tax benefits, etc. They're denying gay people the ability to define their union with a word they want to reserve only use for men and women. That's the sum total of their ridiculous exercise in semantics.

Even though I'm not gay or Republican, and my country already allows them to get normal-married - I assume it's not about tax benefits.
It's about the word.
One side is saying "What's the big deal? It's just a word. You're still treated pretty much the same" and the other is saying "Exactly. So let us just use that fucking word."

Anyways. I'm just entertaining myself. No need to break down my nonsensical paragraphs. So really, please don't.

[Professor S]

Typh, if you're going to take the time to write "nonsense", don't plead that people don't address it. If you don't want people to address it, DON'T POST IT. A message board is a conversation, and that takes two or more people. If you just want to get your "nonsense" off your chest, write a blog or better yet just talk to yourself in the car. Don't waste our time. But in any case, please stop your habit of writing paragraphs on serious subjects and then dismissing yourself as "having a lark". Take ownership of your opinion.

A few points:

You needed the militia to defend yourself from the Redcoats because you didn't have a significant standing army at the time (compared to the British). The militia was your army. Now that your country has a massive professional army, and it's hundreds of years in the future, I think the militia thing is a little passe - unless you guys want to pick and choose other archaeic few-hundred-year-old things to live by.

Ok, then I guess we can just ignore all of the Bill of Rights? They're all equally archaic, right? So freedom of speech and protection against unlawful search and seizure should be ignored as well? Of course not. "Archaic" has nothing to do with your opinion. You're entire standard of the law and people's rights are what YOU happen to agree or disagree with, regardless of the process or what individual rights you would deny others. You don't value gun rights, therefore EVERYONE should not be able to exercise them.

Watch the Penn and Teller video, and if you did watch it, watch it again. The militia = the military, it is not paramilitary or a bunch of jackasses running around in the woods on weekends. And if people disagree with the amendment protecting gun ownership, they can overturn it through the amendment process. It was done with prohibition, it can be done with gun ownership. You can't simply ignore it because a few people, or even many people, think it's archaic.

Well I can't not agree with that! Everyone will agree with that. Everyone's idea of a bad law is different though - and your country is so large, and vastly divided (you had a war between two parts of your country BECAUSE they are so different - most countries split up after that) that it's nearly impossible for your entire country to come to a majority decision on anything.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of the legislative and amendment process. If you can't gather a large majority of public opinion, you can't remove the rights of the individual, and this is especially true of those rights protected in the bill of rights. This is also why state's rights are important. So are federal rights, but one does not need to eliminate the other.

It's like comparing guns to suffrage, or slavery. Same shit, different era.

Even though I'm not gay or Republican, and my country already allows them to get normal-married - I assume it's not about tax benefits.
It's about the word.
One side is saying "What's the big deal? It's just a word. You're still treated pretty much the same" and the other is saying "Exactly. So let us just use that fucking word."

So slavery and women's suffrage movements are the same as arguing over semantics/the use of a word? Of course they aren't. This is why I favor a more natural, society based resolution to the gay marriage issue. In the end, this IS about the use of a word, and I don't think that argument (as anemic as it is) is worth the political and cultural strife it would cause to force a new cultural norm on a population that doesn't want it.

Again, we both agree on the heart of this issue, but forcing it could potentially cause violence and even murder in our more backward areas. Not only that, it could give enough political will to attempt an amendment defining marriage, and I think that would set the entire cause back for decades, potentially.