nortlp

Quote :

"agreed. once the government created a government issued marriage license, it opened that license to any consenting adults, except close relatives."

the gov't doesn't have to give out the license to anyone who shows up. Does anyone who shows up and asks for a doctor's license get it? What about a real estate license? Law license? Hell, in your example, a driver's license? Or, does the gov't impose some kind of, say it with me, qualifications that applicants must meet in order to obtain the license? This certainly must be the case, as it we know that not just anyone can get a medical license. Not just anyone can get a real estate license. Not just anyone can get a driver's license. Under the conditions of your post, that would somehow be discriminatory, because not just any person who showed up would receive a license.

Now, I know where you are about to go: the gov't can't just impose any arbitrary set of qualifications. In your next statement, you mention denying a driver's license to an asian woman not being allowed. Thus, we would both agree that there are limits to what the qualification can be. The main limit is that the qualification cannot be specifically limiting to protected classes. Well, denying to asian women is clearly limiting to protected classes, as both national origin and gender are protected, so a combination of the two is also protected. In marriage, however, such a restriction does not exist. Both male and female are able to acquire the license, as can all races, creeds, national origins, etc. Even homosexuals can acquire the license, provided they apply with someone of the opposite sex (which doesn't ultimately matter because, IIRC, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class, nor is it protected in NC). The makeup of the two parties in the contract can thus be limited, as long as the restriction allows for all protected classes, and this clearly allows for that.

Quote :

"Now wait, are they not rights, or are they just not natural rights? if you're going to split hairs on semantics, then you have to do it right. Your argument assumes a distinction that you aren't defining, whereas the counterpoint assumes that any such distinction is immaterial for the purposes of this matter."

Well, the problem with this, duke, is that I am responding to others suggesting that people's rights are being restricted. I've specifically asked them what rights are being restricted, and they never respond. The only thing I can assume they therefor mean is the supposed right to gov't recognition. It seems quite silly to suggest that anyone has a right to make other people agree with and endorse their actions via gov't approval, unless we completely pervert what a right is. I'm probably more aiming towards a natural right in that regard. but at that point, bitching and moaning about having your "rights taken away from you" when using such a nebulous definition of "right" is akin to screaming "help, help, I'm being repressed."

5/10/2012 11:19:54 PM

Homosexuals are free to marry those of the opposite sex.

Sanctity of marriage indeed!

5/11/2012 1:03:56 AM

5/11/2012 1:48:47 AM

5/11/2012 7:38:10 AM

if it werent for straight marriage we wouldn't have all these gay babies in the first place. ban straight marriage

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

5/11/2012 7:40:25 AM

Fuck it. Ban all marriages and allow prostitution.

5/11/2012 7:42:08 AM

^^^That might be the first sign I actually really like. Hilarious, and poignant. It helps that he's nice to look at too.

5/11/2012 8:39:59 AM

Quote :

"the gov't doesn't have to give out the license to anyone who shows up. Does anyone who shows up and asks for a doctor's license get it? What about a real estate license? Law license? Hell, in your example, a driver's license? Or, does the gov't impose some kind of, say it with me, qualifications that applicants must meet in order to obtain the license? This certainly must be the case, as it we know that not just anyone can get a medical license. Not just anyone can get a real estate license. Not just anyone can get a driver's license. Under the conditions of your post, that would somehow be discriminatory, because not just any person who showed up would receive a license. Now, I know where you are about to go: the gov't can't just impose any arbitrary set of qualifications. In your next statement, you mention denying a driver's license to an asian woman not being allowed. Thus, we would both agree that there are limits to what the qualification can be. The main limit is that the qualification cannot be specifically limiting to protected classes. Well, denying to asian women is clearly limiting to protected classes, as both national origin and gender are protected, so a combination of the two is also protected. In marriage, however, such a restriction does not exist. Both male and female are able to acquire the license, as can all races, creeds, national origins, etc. Even homosexuals can acquire the license, provided they apply with someone of the opposite sex (which doesn't ultimately matter because, IIRC, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class, nor is it protected in NC). The makeup of the two parties in the contract can thus be limited, as long as the restriction allows for all protected classes, and this clearly allows for that."

You have yet to provide any legally defensible reason of why two dudes can't get a marriage license. You just keep saying they can't because they can't, but why?

5/11/2012 9:05:01 AM

NO, it does have an impact on your life. I hope they make a new amendment where only heterosexual Christians can get married.

Maybe they can also ban mosques in NC too while they are at it, seeing thats what they are trying to do in some other states.

5/11/2012 9:25:32 AM

Quote :

"In marriage, however, such a restriction does not exist. Both male and female are able to acquire the license, as can all races, creeds, national origins, etc. Even homosexuals can acquire the license, provided they apply with someone of the opposite sex (which doesn't ultimately matter because, IIRC, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class, nor is it protected in NC). The makeup of the two parties in the contract can thus be limited, as long as the restriction allows for all protected classes, and this clearly allows for that.""

I disagree.

I can't think of any other type of contract that is specifically restricted based on the gender of the two parties involved. How can if be legal to say that a contract can exist between a man and a woman, but the exact same contract cannot exist between a man and another man? This is not a reasonable restriction and is, IMO, clearly violates the 14th amendment.

The amendment would actually have been more legally defensible if it had said that homosexuals cannot marry, because that is not a protected class (yet), but it specifies based on gender, which is not allowed in any other contract or license of which I'm aware.

5/11/2012 9:32:45 AM

^ exactly, the specific restriction of rights is that a woman can enter into a contract with a man that a man may not, based only on gender.

5/11/2012 9:36:39 AM

The thing is though, people voted for A1 not because of protected classes, etc. They voted for it based on their religious belief. Many even said that the government should enforce religious/moral laws. This part is very frightening. If the far right is going to start pushing religion based laws then this country is doomed. I'm not a fan of our court system (how it is used now); however, I'm hoping for a sweeping court decision soon that bats all this religion based bullshit out to help send the message that the state and church shall not intertwine. Christian conservatives think it's so great that they can force their beliefs onto others via the government. Well, if we open that door far enough, then other religions have a much better chance of intertwining with the government. When laws more in line with Jews or Muslims start getting proposed, Christians will be in a frenzy. Anyone else remember that scare story that at least Fox covered? Something about Muslims trying to get Sharia Law into our lawbooks? Christian conservatives were in a shitstorm over it and they even used the first amendment and the idea of separation of church and state to fight for their position against installing Sharia Law. So where is that now when they're pushing their beliefs on others?

[Edited on May 11, 2012 at 9:43 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2012 9:39:02 AM

Quote :

"I can't think of any other type of contract that is specifically restricted based on the gender of the two parties involved. How can if be legal to say that a contract can exist between a man and a woman, but the exact same contract cannot exist between a man and another man?"

Exactly. How are people not getting this? What if the amendment was more restrictive to only Christians or only Caucasian couples?

I am losing faith in humanity all the time. Something like 40% of Dems voted for the amendment too. Its not just a Republican issue here that has to be addressed.

5/11/2012 9:42:54 AM

5/11/2012 2:23:32 PM

Quote :

"Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10%."

Quote :

"As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government, we have to recognise that freedom means freedom, for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.""

Part of a memo to the GOP by Bush '04 pollster Jan van Lohuizen

Full memo here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html

5/12/2012 5:46:44 PM

you dipshits are still moaning about this?

5/12/2012 5:50:27 PM

Maybe all the gays should move to Mass or Cali and leave us the fuck alone

5/12/2012 8:42:08 PM

regarding Romney speech:

How the hell do you talk about religious freedom and then like right after that talk about how marriage is between a man and a woman?

5/12/2012 9:52:18 PM

You have the freedom to practice any flavor of the Christian religion.

5/12/2012 10:06:03 PM

i think we should repeal ALL victimless laws that you can only justify using morality like prostitution and the war on drugs personally. If you disagree then it should be easy for you to accept that the state gets to decide who we can marry.



[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 7:27 AM. Reason : s]

5/13/2012 7:14:39 AM

Quote :

"You have the freedom to practice any flavor of the Christian religion."

I can hardly begin on how wrong this is. Christianity denominations are only compatible on things like abortion that the bible doesn't give any clear guidance on. In other words, the idea is a generally Christian cause is BS.

5/13/2012 7:58:31 AM

You didn't think that was a serious comment, did you?

5/13/2012 1:53:57 PM

So, got in an argument with someone about this, they said "faggots are destroying our culture and society" or something to that extent using the f word at which point I waved my hand and said, have a good day.

Eh, what an amazing species those homo sapiens.

5/13/2012 2:03:23 PM

That's when I would really dive into the conversation personally. When someone says that you know you're having fun.

5/13/2012 2:12:28 PM

^ I've known someone that would just drop the N word ages back. Saying all those n-words this and that. People using words like that I find its not even worth continuing talking to. Personally I think using that language is to get a response, its better not giving it and just saying F them and walking off.

I mean, why would you use that language in the first place with someone you don't know that well?

Anyway, back to what the person saying f-word was saying... he was saying gayness is spreading because they are passing their culture on via the liberal media to essentially undermine the white race or something to that extent. I should have asked if he watches Alex Jones much.

EDIT: I apologize if I offended anyone using the word, it is an offensive word.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : f-word]

5/13/2012 2:25:56 PM

Hate your next door neighbor but don't forget to say grace

5/13/2012 2:49:06 PM

Quote :

"You have yet to provide any legally defensible reason of why two dudes can't get a marriage license. You just keep saying they can't because they can't, but why?"

The legally defensible reason is that it is not restricted to deny them a marriage license by the Constitution. Does that mean we should deny them one? Well, that's a different discussion.

Quote :

"I can't think of any other type of contract that is specifically restricted based on the gender of the two parties involved."

You still don't get it. The contract is NOT restricted in any way. GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION AND ENDORSEMENT of that contract is restricted. Understand the major difference. Gov't benefits to an action is NOT the same thing as the action itself. At the point where the police start busting into ceremonies and start arresting people, then you'll have a point. That aint happening right now, though.

5/13/2012 2:59:06 PM

Quote :

"Anyway, back to what the person saying f-word was saying... he was saying gayness is spreading because they are passing their culture on via the liberal media to essentially undermine the white race or something to that extent. I should have asked if he watches Alex Jones much."

Lol

Gays aren't white? How do they gays undermine white people? I wonder if this is what that politicians wife was talking about...

Gayness can't spread, it's not a communicable disease.

5/13/2012 3:01:19 PM

dude, only straight people can be white.

5/13/2012 3:12:32 PM

I was talking to my friend about it last night... I was like, I like tits... cocks are just nasty... how could I change it that I didn't like tits and started liking cock? It would have to be a cock-loving tit-hating zombie virus or something.

Some reason people think that its like a communicable disease, which is the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Its in my nature to like big 'ol titties (as long as they aren't navel level or some weird shit). Not sure how I liked boobs or a womans curves...but I doubt my love for female curves is some spreadable shit.

5/13/2012 3:19:19 PM

Quote :

"GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION AND ENDORSEMENT of that contract is restricted."

...based on the sex of the contractees.

Glad you're OK with that.

5/13/2012 3:19:52 PM

gotta get this

5/13/2012 3:23:51 PM

^not bad, but the amendment doesn't go into effect until next year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-usa-marriage-legal-idUSBRE84A1CQ20120511

Quote :

"Two big cases addressing marriage rights for gays and lesbians are on track to reach the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as this year"

It's an off chance, but this amendment may never take effect, especially if they can get an injunction while the courts hash it out.

5/13/2012 3:29:45 PM

Quote :

"based on the sex of the contractees. Glad you're OK with that."

Where did I say I was OK with it? right, I didn't. learn to read, morans

5/13/2012 3:44:34 PM

I'm sorry I mistook your 26 pages of arguing as being OK with restricting gay marriage.

5/13/2012 3:52:01 PM

I just parked my car, but I did not gay park my car.

5/13/2012 3:55:42 PM

Most of you are arguing about the minor issue (gay marriage) when you should be looking at the major issue that affects everyone (exploiting the 10th amendment to limit citizens' rights).

I warned you all when you hooped and hollered about how great the smoking ban was in private establishments. This is the outcome and it is going to get worse. Just wait until there is an age limit on marriage and a limit on the number of offspring you can produce.

How long until the reproduction amendment gets voted on? Imagine getting married at 25, having 2 kids with your husband, and then he bolts for another woman who has had no children because he can't have anymore with you due to the 2 child limit that the government has imposed. The woman with 2 kids can't get married because she can't bear anymore children.

This shit is going to be bad until people stop voting on small issues and look at the bigger picture. Being in a favor of banning gay marriage because of religious beliefs is just as valid as being against smoking in private establishments because you don't like cigarettes. If you continue to view it small issue by small issue then you are going to win some and lose some. When you lose, remember how great the previous victories were, and how society's shortsightedness continues to erode the personal liberties that Americans are granted in the Constitution.

5/13/2012 4:10:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry I mistook your 26 pages of arguing as being OK with restricting gay marriage."

no, you just can't comprehend what I've said. I've said the restriction on gov't recognition is legal, nothing more. Learn to read what people actually say and not just project onto them what you think they are saying. It'll make you look less foolish in the future.

Quote :

"exploiting the 10th amendment to limit citizens' rights"

Where has anyone had their rights restricted again here?

Quote :

"Just wait until there is an age limit on marriage and a limit on the number of offspring you can produce."

I can't imagine the gov't would put a limit on the age when they would recognize a marriage. If they do, fine, they can do it, but I doubt it will happen. And the number of children you can have? Blatantly unconstitutional, and would be easily struck down. Get out of here with that doom and gloom shit.

Quote :

"How long until the reproduction amendment gets voted on? Imagine getting married at 25, having 2 kids with your husband, and then he bolts for another woman who has had no children because he can't have anymore with you due to the 2 child limit that the government has imposed. The woman with 2 kids can't get married because she can't bear anymore children. "

Because the only reason people ever get married is to pump out babies? Really? Are you really trying to say that? I don't even think the pizza boy would say something that stupid.

5/13/2012 4:20:47 PM

How is your view that "restriction on gov't recognition is legal" with respect to gay marriage any different from the belief that gay marriage should be restricted?

Hint: It's not, particularly where government grants rights and privileges based on that recognition.

5/13/2012 4:38:10 PM

Quote :

"How is your view that "restriction on gov't recognition is legal" with respect to gay marriage any different from the belief that gay marriage should be restricted?"

Because one is a statement of what exists, and the other is a statement of how it should be. For instance, I can state that the gov't is legally allowed to restrict the sale of recreational drugs without saying that the gov't should restrict said sales. See the difference?

Quote :

"Hint: It's not, particularly where government grants rights and privileges based on that recognition."

1) The gov't doesn't grant rights.
2) There are plenty of gov't privileges that are are contingent upon meeting qualifications. why do you think this one is any different?

5/13/2012 5:13:31 PM

You're turning into hooksaw.

Quote :

"There are plenty of gov't privileges that are are contingent upon meeting qualifications. why do you think this one is any different?"

You've mentioned several previously: driver's license, medical license, professional engineer, etc.

Many of these have obvious and compelling arguments that the public good served by restricting licensure to qualified individuals outweighs the 'evil' of restricting the activities of those who do not meet the qualification. Even then, the government does not restrict many licensed activities under conditions where others are not affected:

- I can practice engineering in North Carolina without a license provided the health and safety of the public is not affected and I don't sell services to others.

- I can self medicate (or not).

- I can drive without a license on private thoroughfares.

- My home kitchen has no cleanliness requirements.



Tell me: What public good is served by the government restricting marriage licenses and benefits exclusively to opposite sex couples?

5/13/2012 5:36:23 PM

what public good is served is irrelevant as to whether or not the gov't can legally make that restriction. the legality of a law is not predicated upon it doing any public good.

also, nice ad hominem

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 5:42:15 PM

Really? Then what legal basis does the government have for requiring doctors to possess a medical license? Or drivers to have a driver's license?

5/13/2012 5:51:42 PM

the 9th and 10th amendments, assuming you mean state gov't

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 5:54:41 PM

State governments are free to arbitrarily limit the rights and activities of its citizens, provided those rights are not expressly outlined elsewhere in the constitution?

5/13/2012 6:10:37 PM

considering that the state isn't restricting or limiting any rights or activities, I'm not sure why you are asking. Did Supplanter get thrown in jail Wednesday and I'm just not aware of it? Or are you suggesting that a medical license or driver's license is a right upon which the state cannot infringe and it must hand them out to anyone who asks for one?

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 6:13:22 PM

Sometimes I wonder if your head is literally a solid mass of wood.

5/13/2012 6:18:10 PM

sometimes I wonder if you can discuss anything without resorting to ad hominem. Is it your contention that the states cannot deny a medical license to anyone? Is it your contention that gov't recognition is a right? Why didn't Dubya have to come shake my hand when I graduated?

I mean, are you seriously asking whether or not the states can restrict the activities of people? What the fuck do you think speed limits are? What do you think laws against murder and theft are? Are those not examples of state gov'ts restricting the activities of the people?

effectively, you just asked "why can States make laws"?

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 6:22:23 PM

I'm not asking why states can make laws. I'm asking what limits there are on those laws, because you don't seem to believe there are any.

What I'm suggesting is that you do, in fact, have individual rights that far exceed those expressly listed in the Constitution. The government can infringe on those rights, provided those infringements on individual rights are outweighed by the benefit to the rest of society (i.e., everyone else's individual rights). Even then, the scope and type of infringements are limited by the Constitution and cannot be arbitrary.

5/13/2012 6:27:29 PM

i don't disagree with all of that. but gov't recognition and endorsement of your actions is NOT a right. a medical license is NOT a right. A driver's license is NOT a right. A marriage license is NOT a right.

Quote :

"The government can infringe on those rights, provided those infringements on individual rights are outweighed by the benefit to the rest of society (i.e., everyone else's individual rights)."

No, not really. If the people vote in the states to infringe upon a specific right, the 10th amendment is very clear that such an action is allowed, assuming that the right is not expressly protected by the Constitution. There need be no "public good" done, just simple majority vote. It is only Constitutionally protected rights that require a "public good" reason for infringement, at a minimum.

5/13/2012 6:29:37 PM