north carolina const. amendmnt on gay marraige

JonnyPistachio

know1 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

know1 wrote:

but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.

Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.

Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?

I'm actually saying that marriage is a choice.

Although they're typically closely linked, marriage does not exactly equal sex or sexual preference either.

What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).

Is who you fall in love with a choice?

redrock

know1 wrote:

What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).

I guess yes, everyone has the equal opportunity to choose (if deciding you would like to marry your partner is choosing), but your 'choice' may not be possible because the law doesn't allow you to marry if you are not the 'right type' of partners. So I may choose to marry my same sex partner but when I go for all the legal stuff, I find that I can't enter into a MARRIAGE (ie marry) but I can possibly enter into a civil partnership which does not entail the same rights as a marriage. Or I can't do either of those and have to 'live in sin'!

So, whilst there seems to be a choice at the outset, pursuing this choice may become limited or non-existent, depending on your sex and where you live.

know1

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Is who you fall in love with a choice?

I think so.

Unfortunately, the ones that I choose to fall in love with don't necessary fall in love or want to marry me.

JonnyPistachio

know1 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Is who you fall in love with a choice?

I think so.

Unfortunately, the ones that I choose to fall in love with don't necessary fall in love or want to marry me.

sorry to hear that man. Better luck soon! We'll just agree to disagree then. I think you can control some factors leading to love, but I dont think you cant ultimately control who you fall in love with. (Mila Kunis excluded of course)

Cosmo

How about this... Strip the marriage rights from everyone. Married couples... everyone. This way, no one is missing out on anything and Marriage can remain the Sanctity that it is... In The Eyes Of God.
Problem: Solved.
Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
•Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
•Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

justam

know1 wrote:

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here (and nice selective quoting, by the way). You took my comment totally out of context and ignored the conversation string to which I was replying. The "they" I was referring was gay marriages in general, not people.

Here's a recap:

1. Someone asked why couldn't gay marriages just be called something else. They were thinking this might be a compromise to make them legal.
2. A subsequent comment stated that calling gay marriages something different was akin to black people having separate drinking fountains, etc.
3. I stated that it was nothing like blacks having separate drinking fountains.
4. The comment was made that if that were the case, why were gay marriages put into a separate pile.
5. I stated that it was because they were different and that we label things that are different all the time with not real negative consequences (man, woman, child, blonde, etc.)
6. Then your comment came out of left field.

It's interesting to me that your recap of our exchange was so simplified as to ignore why I was bringing up the waterfountains in the first place. Specifically, I believe that having to put a separate label on unions between same sex couples is SIMILAR to segregation in that it is a separation of one group of people (specifically homosexuals) from another group (heterosexuals) rather than allowing everyone to share the same label of "Marriage" is similar to forcing one group of people to use different drinking fountains rather than allowing everyone the privilege of drinking from the same fountain.

Does that clarify how I mean the two situations to be the same? I'm sorry I jumped over a few steps and didn't explain the whole thought in detail. Sometimes I give people credit for understanding a large picture, but maybe it's not always clear?

know1

justam wrote:

know1 wrote:

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here (and nice selective quoting, by the way). You took my comment totally out of context and ignored the conversation string to which I was replying. The "they" I was referring was gay marriages in general, not people.

Here's a recap:

1. Someone asked why couldn't gay marriages just be called something else. They were thinking this might be a compromise to make them legal.
2. A subsequent comment stated that calling gay marriages something different was akin to black people having separate drinking fountains, etc.
3. I stated that it was nothing like blacks having separate drinking fountains.
4. The comment was made that if that were the case, why were gay marriages put into a separate pile.
5. I stated that it was because they were different and that we label things that are different all the time with not real negative consequences (man, woman, child, blonde, etc.)
6. Then your comment came out of left field.

It's interesting to me that your recap of our exchange was so simplified as to ignore why I was bringing up the waterfountains in the first place. Specifically, I believe that having to put a separate label on unions between same sex couples is SIMILAR to segregation in that it is a separation of one group of people (specifically homosexuals) from another group (heterosexuals) rather than allowing everyone to share the same label of "Marriage" is similar to forcing one group of people to use different drinking fountains rather than allowing everyone the privilege of drinking from the same fountain.

Does that clarify how I mean the two situations to be the same? I'm sorry I jumped over a few steps and didn't explain the whole thought in detail. Sometimes I give people credit for understanding a large picture, but maybe it's not always clear?

No it doesn't.

Just to highlight why labels are not the same as actions, you just used the labels of homosexual and heterosexual in your post. Do those labels equal discrimination that is akin to drinking from separate water fountains?

mikepegg44

know1 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

know1 wrote:

but if you think about it, everyone actually can get married now.

Know1, you make some good points, but this one always just seems to rub me the wrong way. Yes, I understand what you're saying - that we all have the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but that line just makes me think that people are suggesting homosexuality is a choice. (i'm not saying you're saying that though). Point is, if you're gay, you're flat out exempt from marrying the person you love.

Are you suggesting that gay folks should just cave in and marry someone of the opposite sex?

I'm actually saying that marriage is a choice.

Although they're typically closely linked, marriage does not exactly equal sex or sexual preference either.

What I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying - that everyone already does have an equal opportunity to choose to marry (I'm not using the word right).

Know 1 I have to say I like your style. no nonsense.
the easiest solution is to get the government out of the marriage business all together. But if it is going to give special abilities and privileges to people who choose to enter into the contract of marriage, not allowing people of a certain gender to marry each other simply based on biology is institutional discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law, isn't it?

I don't know of too many laws that make it so that people cannot have privileges granted by the state because of the gender involved.
Separate does not mean equal. I understand the point you are trying to make that everyone has the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. But by that rationale, doesn't it also imply that you are unable to marry someone of the same sex based solely on gender? And isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment?
There are two solutions I see. Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite...or remove all privileges given to it from the gov't all together. In their private clubs they can discriminate all they want and people will be free to be as intolerant as they choose. I will always defend their right to that behavior in private settings...

know1

mikepegg44 wrote:

Know 1 I have to say I like your style. no nonsense.
the easiest solution is to get the government out of the marriage business all together. But if it is going to give special abilities and privileges to people who choose to enter into the contract of marriage, not allowing people of a certain gender to marry each other simply based on biology is institutional discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law, isn't it?

I don't know of too many laws that make it so that people cannot have privileges granted by the state because of the gender involved.
Separate does not mean equal. I understand the point you are trying to make that everyone has the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex. But by that rationale, doesn't it also imply that you are unable to marry someone of the same sex based solely on gender? And isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment?
There are two solutions I see. Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite...or remove all privileges given to it from the gov't all together. In their private clubs they can discriminate all they want and people will be free to be as intolerant as they choose. I will always defend their right to that behavior in private settings...

First, let me say that I agree with your two solutions. I think either is the route to go. I think the public and government are wasting too much time and effort on it either way.

I don't think you can cleanly make it a discrimination based upon gender issue, though. I still say anyone of any gender has the current ability/privilege to get married. What makes it tricky is that marriage is a privilege granted to 2 PEOPLE and not individuals acting along.

It's all silly anyway. Outside of the government-related benefits/advantages - of which I don't really think are that significant, but perhaps I'm just ignorant - marriage is essentially a commitment between people that typically begins with some symbolic ritual or ceremony. I think people should be able to freely do that without the government being involved in anyway.

cincybearcat

Cosmo wrote:

Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."


Consumer Benefits
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Good list. Couple of questions:

1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?

2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Consumer Benefits
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Good list. Couple of questions:
1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?
2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?

...
Good Question.
My answer is, "I don't know".
I admit, I Cut/Pasted it from a website.
The point I was trying to make is that if there were no legal/financial benefits from marriage... and marriage was strictly rooted in religion... then the Churches could ban whatever marriages they wanted... even interracial marriages. The Church would have to field the protests that would surely come their way, should they decide to ban certain types of marriage.
The problem arises because all of those legal rights that are tied to marriage by the State. If we disengage the rights that are coupled with marriage, this would not be an issue.

pandora

The idea here of calling all unions...
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.

then leave the marriage business to the churches...

Perhaps this could unite people.

cincybearcat

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Consumer Benefits
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Good list. Couple of questions:
1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?
2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?

...
Good Question.
My answer is, "I don't know".
I admit, I Cut/Pasted it from a website.
The point I was trying to make is that if there were no legal/financial benefits from marriage... and marriage was strictly rooted in religion... then the Churches could ban whatever marriages they wanted... even interracial marriages. The Church would have to field the protests that would surely come their way, should they decide to ban certain types of marriage.
The problem arises because all of those legal rights that are tied to marriage by the State. If we disengage the rights that are coupled with marriage, this would not be an issue.

No, I get and agree with your point.

I was just wondering about those couple of questions. Anyhow, like I said, good list and I agree.

redrock

mikepegg44 wrote:

Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite.....

The thing is, I betcha that most of these 'marriage preservers' that, supposedly, want to keep the word marriage 'as intended' (by whom?) between man and woman, are against same sex unions, whatever they may be/however one wants to call them. It has nothing to do with 'tradition' but rather to do with intolerance - they just do not want gays to be 'married/unioned ( :? )' and have the same rights as them due to their twisted views on homosexuality. I doubt that these same people would be happy having their 'marriage' (civil - ie those not married in church) and rights put in the same hat as same sex ones - whatever one calls them and would happily vote in such an 'arrangement'.

Calling all unions a 'civil union' (or any other suitable label) with same rights, whilst sounding 'egalitarian' is going to meet just as much resistance from those 'marriage preservers' as the 'marriage' issue is meeting. In my opinion, it's not a feasible solution. (Not sure I explained myself very clearly...).

chadwick

pandora wrote:

The idea here of calling all unions...
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.

then leave the marriage business to the churches...

Perhaps this could unite people.

bj and you are not married. it is a civil union you two love-birds have. does that sound lovely to you, miss?

pandora

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

The idea here of calling all unions...
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.

then leave the marriage business to the churches...

Perhaps this could unite people.

bj and you are not married. it is a civil union you two love-birds have. does that sound lovely to you, miss?

Yes it's the same thing ... we have a license
and it will be great that then my gay friends can have a license also
we will have the same civil matrimony with equal rights under the law...

they are already married in a church, have celebrated almost as many anniversaries
as Jay and I.
We will celebrate big time !!!

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

Good list. Couple of questions:

1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?

2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?

1) You might remember the 80s TV show "Kate and Allie" which featured two divorced mothers with their children living in an apartment. Technically, that would be illegal in many places because many apartments are zoned for "Single families." Meaning you can't have more than one family live there. It's a violation of zoning laws. They even addressed that in one episode. Had they been a recognized family, that would have been just fine but a gay couple living with their children would (and often do) run into legal trouble and have been evicted because they live in States that have made it illegal to recognize even civil unions.

2) many places like movie theaters or theme parks will offer a "family discount" for two parents with children. Like "pay for two kids and the whole family can come in" or "20% discount on food for families." Families with same-sex parents are often refused these discounts or special prices.

A more dangerous example of this will now raise it's ugly head in North Carolina where many children will lose their health insurance because their biological parent isn't the one with the "family coverage" form work.

gimmesometruth27

i can't believe people like this get elected :fp:

James Lankford, GOP Rep, Opposes Laws Against Gay Employee Discrimination

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 14559.html

Freshman Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told ThinkProgress in a recent interview that he was against laws designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation, because of his belief that being gay is a "choice."

"Race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently -- skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, 'Gay or straight?'" Lankford said. "I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue."

President Barack Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage rights spurred a legislative push on such safeguards last week. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported that a bipartisan group of senators renewed calls for hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation that would expand employee anti-discrimination language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Lankford isn't the only freshman Republican to express opposition to this type of bill. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said such protections were unnecessary because discrimination based on sexual orientation simply didn't happen.

"That don’t happen out here in the United States of America," he told ThinkProgress.

chadwick

i can't believe the gay marriage ban thread got shut down

Cosmo

Some people believe so deeply in the 'Sanctity of Marriage'... they get married 3 or 4 times.
...
I wish there was a way to figure out how many people who believe in the sanctity of marriage and have one or more divorces under their belt.
My best gues would be, 'A lot'.