Constitutional Amendment

[Psych]

I know the Homosexuality thread was recently locked, but I still think this is kinda important.

So for those not in the know, today my state, North Carolina, held it's Primary today to say we're voting for Romney and also a few local positions. But a larger portion of voters also came out in regards to a recent constitutional amendment on the ballot. The amendment would declare marriage as one man and one woman, and even though our state already has declared gay marriage as illegal, this would make it super definitely absolutely illegal.

It just passed.

There has been a lot of news coverage the past few weeks about this, in that it would also affect straight couples. Because of the definition of marriage, it's affecting unmarried couples like those with shared custody rights and it affects things like marital abuse and the ability to prosecute it. Lots of out of state money has apparently been coming in in favor of the amendment as well.

So at least we know why the South is how it is.

I must say it's pretty ingenious of Republicans to schedule it today though. The Republican primary would obviously draw out more Republicans who are likely anti-gay since they have other things to vote for such as Romney, but I have heard that a lot of Democrats came out today as well. But them's the breaks.

I'm pretty sure it only passed by about 10% or so, I think even less.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I love how we both posted about this news just in different formats.

Anyway, I doubt that they'd get away with this. Prop 8 was unconstitutional, I'm sure Amendment 1 will be unconstitutional.

[Sunwoo]

I don't understand how "banning same-sex marriage" can be made a constitutional amendment. I thought there was an amendment in the constitution already that said that you aren't allowed to discriminate against differences. (14th, if I recall correctly?) So this is just ridiculous to me.

By the way, does anyone know if California repeated Prop 8 already? Because I'm not completely sure where it stands at the moment.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Prop 8's been overturned for a little while now; gay marriage is legal in California again.

[Psych]

I love how we both posted about this news just in different formats.

Anyway, I doubt that they'd get away with this. Prop 8 was unconstitutional, I'm sure Amendment 1 will be unconstitutional.

That might be true, but our legislation is about to be controlled by republicans, and I believe it already is, so I highly doubt it/

Plus it's hard to be declared unconstitutional when it now is the constitution. The supreme court will have to deal with that.

Also I only noticed that like a minute after I posted this. I guess I type slowly.

I don't understand how "banning same-sex marriage" can be made a constitutional amendment. I thought there was an amendment in the constitution already that said that you aren't allowed to discriminate against differences. (14th, if I recall correctly?) So this is just ridiculous to me.

By the way, does anyone know if California repeated Prop 8 already? Because I'm not completely sure where it stands at the moment.

Yes, for the country. However, I'm not sure if this is allowed to fall under reserved powers of the state, so since we're amending our constitution it might stand.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Psych

[Caliban of Sycorax]

At least your topic has more substance.

I'm hoping it gets taken to the Supreme Court. Discrimination is illegal in the United States; there's no fucking way North Carolina can get away with banning same-sex marriage. It's flat out discrimination. No way around it.

Also, funny quote on Twitter relating to the subject:

[Sunwoo]

Prop 8's been overturned for a little while now; gay marriage is legal in California again.

Oh, that's good. I looked it up a while ago, but what I read was kind of vague so I wasn't sure. Good to hear that California cleaned up their act. (For now.)

Edit:

Yes, for the country. However, I'm not sure if this is allowed to fall under reserved powers of the state, so since we're amending our constitution it might stand.

I hope this doesn't become another "states' rights" issue. But in all seriousness, if the country says that "discrimination is no-no", I fail to see why the states in said country would think, "it's all right in our state."

Edited May 9, 2012 by Folgore Yellow

[Silvercrow]

Well, I voted against it. Not much else to do or say.

It seems like something that will eventually be overturned but just has to be dealt with for the moment. 58-42 is a landslide when you're talking elections. I don't think these sorts of amendments will make it to the Supreme Court--I would think that likely a federal law (or constitutional amendment) would have to happen to really change anything.

It's a tough situation.

[Psych]

I'm waiting for our amendment on slavery. Should be any day now.

[BBM]

Not being from America, I'm not very well versed in how American law works. So can someone clarify for me to what extent states are allowed to have their own laws separate from that of the country? As in, does provincial law supersede federal law in that state, or not?

[Rehab]

An NPR program I was listening to today claimed that national opinion poll results seem to be a bit more in favor of allowing gay marriage, almost the same 58-42 ratio that this was passed by (and definitely much more toward that end than 60-something to 30-something in the 90's,), but that actual votes and referendums seem to tend to end up in favor of the opposite side. Sucks.

I wonder how conservative North Carolina is, exactly.

edit towards BBM: the short version is that it's complicated. The federal government claims certain powers, but basically everything not named in the constitution is kind of assumed to be the state's responsibility, and marriage is one of those things not mentioned, so arguments tend to rage about what the "founding fathers" who wrote the Constitution would have thought and intended. We can amend that Constitution so that it would be something the federal government could specifically pressure states on, but it's really hard.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Rehab

[Psych]

It's dicey.

States have full control over things like schools and state taxes, while the federal government controls the postal system and money as well as federal taxes. States have differing laws regarding things like gun control however, so while our constitution declares bearing arms a right, states can limit what types of weapons and access to them they have on a different basis.

It's the same way New York and Vermont and Washington can allow same sex marriage, but North Carolina suddenly declare it illegal. Maybe. I think.

This is where the 14th amendment saying all citizens are equal moves in and can pull this into the federal court system. I'm just not seeing how exactly a case would spring forth from this however, but you can be sure one will pop up eventually.

[I.M. Gei]

An NPR program I was listening to today claimed that national opinion poll results seem to be a bit more in favor of allowing gay marriage, almost the same 58-42 ratio that this was passed by (and definitely much more toward that end than 60-something to 30-something in the 90's,), but that actual votes and referendums seem to tend to end up in favor of the opposite side. Sucks.

I wonder how conservative North Carolina is, exactly.

Well, they voted Obama in 2008, but did a complete 180 in 2010.

[Psych]

Well, they voted Obama in 2008, but did a complete 180 in 2010.

A lot of states did that, but you can see the ramifications of it in Wisconsin today, as they also had their primary today and are currently recalling their governor. It's pretty much guaranteed though that Obama's going to win in 2012, I just can't see how Romney could win.

Though I should probably get off of the politics side and keep this on topic.

[Snapdragon]

Thanks, North Carolina. We definitely need to set the country back a couple centuries or so and this is a great start.

Also, wasn't prop 8 declared unconstitutional because California had previously made gay marriage legal, so they couldn't take the right away without good reason? I'm not so sure this is the same situation even though I do consider it discriminatory.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Snapdragon

[Rewjeo]

Is there even a constitutional argument as to why gay marriage would be illegal? Far and above the most common argument is that the Bible says it's a sin. Beyond all the reasons that's ridiculous that don't need to be gone into here, there is supposed to be a very clear separation of church and state in this country, so citing the Bible for the creation of a law is, well, an issue.

[Snapdragon]

No argument that doesn't logically fall apart when you actually think about it for longer than two seconds. The only reason it's illegal is peoples "ick!" reflex. I think children is the second most used argument. But that falls apart single kids aren't required for marriage and homosexuals can have kids too.

[Sunwoo]

Also, I think there has been plenty of research done on the issue of children, that there is no evidence that children that grow up with same-sex parents are less well-adjusted than children who grew up with opposite-gender parents. Honestly, I think it's just people grasping at straws for whatever argument sounds the best, but they're baseless.

[Celice]

No argument that doesn't logically fall apart when you actually think about it for longer than two seconds. The only reason it's illegal is peoples "ick!" reflex. I think children is the second most used argument. But that falls apart single kids aren't required for marriage and homosexuals can have kids too.

Something about government aid for married couples, about whether it should apply to same-sex partners (which is then probably derived from something about non-child-bearing stuff).

As the hippies will say, it's mostly to keep your eyes away from worse things going on.

[1st Mate Bob]

No argument that doesn't logically fall apart when you actually think about it for longer than two seconds. The only reason it's illegal is peoples "ick!" reflex. I think children is the second most used argument. But that falls apart single kids aren't required for marriage and homosexuals can have kids too.

However, if a gay couple has a civil union, and they adopt a kid, it "technically" only belongs to one person. Meaning, if the person who adopted it were to die, the kid would be sent back to the orphanage instead of going to the second parent like it would if they were married. This is one of many MANY reasons why not having marriage equality is BS.

[Snapdragon]

However, if a gay couple has a civil union, and they adopt a kid, it "technically" only belongs to one person. Meaning, if the person who adopted it were to die, the kid would be sent back to the orphanage instead of going to the second parent like it would if they were married. This is one of many MANY reasons why not having marriage equality is BS.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of they can get pregnant or can have a kid from a previous heterosexual relationship. Either way they're acting as parents even if they're both not being legally recognized as such. My point is complaints that marriage and the tax breaks and benefits it gives are for benefiting children ignores that homosexual couples can and do raise kids as well. Likewise there are married heterosexual couples who have no intentions of ever having children.

I don't like civil unions. Why bother making something that's exactly the same, but name it differently just to appease stupid people. (Not that civil unions are even up to par with marriage anyways.) Our country needs to get its priorities straight if single parents can adopt but gay couples can't.

[Original Alear]

I don't understand how "banning same-sex marriage" can be made a constitutional amendment. I thought there was an amendment in the constitution already that said that you aren't allowed to discriminate against differences. (14th, if I recall correctly?) So this is just ridiculous to me.

By the way, does anyone know if California repeated Prop 8 already? Because I'm not completely sure where it stands at the moment.

You can say, a gay guy is entitled to marry a woman if he wants, and a gay woman is entitled to marry a man if she wants. By defining marriage as between a man and a woman, one does not make it inaccessible to homosexuals. Homosexual and heterosexual men and women have equal access under the law to marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

Well I think and hope the above argument wouldn't fly, primarily because the government is defining an arrangement between pairs of people, and really should be allowing that arrangement to be made between any two people (with possible restrictions on age and whether they are incarcerated, and maybe there are some other things I can't think of?)

Edited May 11, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[1st Mate Bob]

You can say, a gay guy is entitled to marry a woman if he wants, and a gay woman is entitled to marry a man if she wants. By defining marriage as between a man and a woman, one does not make it inaccessible to homosexuals. Homosexual and heterosexual men and women have equal access under the law to marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

Well I think and hope the above argument wouldn't fly, primarily because the government is defining an arrangement between pairs of people, and really should be allowing that arrangement to be made between any two people (with possible restrictions on age and whether they are incarcerated, and maybe there are some other things I can't think of?)

The response against that idea is that by saying that a man can only marry a woman and vice versa is that this concept is gender discrimination. In other words, you are saying a man can't marry a man BECAUSE he's a man, and a woman can't marry a woman BECAUSE she's a woman. It's the same concept as not hiring someone for a job BECAUSE of their gender even if they meet all other qualifications. For marriage, I'm pretty sure the only qualifications needed is enough money to sign the contract.

[Celice]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of they can get pregnant or can have a kid from a previous heterosexual relationship. Either way they're acting as parents even if they're both not being legally recognized as such. My point is complaints that marriage and the tax breaks and benefits it gives are for benefiting children ignores that homosexual couples can and do raise kids as well. Likewise there are married heterosexual couples who have no intentions of ever having children.

I don't like civil unions. Why bother making something that's exactly the same, but name it differently just to appease stupid people. (Not that civil unions are even up to par with marriage anyways.) Our country needs to get its priorities straight if single parents can adopt but gay couples can't.

I think civil unions were a way of allowing marriage without guaranteeing those legal breaks you mentioned.

Not that that qualifies it any better

[Snapdragon]

I think civil unions were a way of allowing marriage without guaranteeing those legal breaks you mentioned.

Not that that qualifies it any better

Well there are a fair number of people who, while not okay with gay marriage, are okay with civil unions because they see homosexuals being unable to get the tax breaks and benefits as unfair. They just don't want it called marriage because..... uh.... well, because. This ignores that that civil unions are inferior pretty much always, but eh. Ignorance and privilege and all that jazz. Even if they did give the same benefits, people would have to watch them like a hawk to make sure that whenever there was a change in benefits for marriage, civil unions would get the same.