29

5/23/2013 6:37:51 PM

this thread is gayer than a chinese handcuff

5/23/2013 6:46:15 PM

"ACLU moves to challenge NC gay marriage ban"
http://m.newsobserver.com/observer/db_277265/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=QByjryeQ

Quote :

"The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it wants to challenge North Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriages by asking the state Attorney General to allow the group to amend an existing lawsuit on second-parent adoptions. The announcement came less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. North Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage remains."

Quote :

"Brook said the lawsuit has always been about protecting children and families. The language of the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling helped link second-parent adoptions and same-sex marriages, he said, providing an impetus for expanding the scope of the lawsuit."

Looks like they're hoping the SCOTUS ruling language/precedent will help in going after amendment 1. It's always been obvious that if the General Assembly put this on the ballot that they'd eventually have to defend it in court, I'm just surprised that it was this soon with it barely a year old.

[Edited on July 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2013 6:14:25 PM

Pennsylvania is following suit as well...should be interesting

7/9/2013 6:28:12 PM

^And Virginia apparently. They're really going all out.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/expanding-freedom-marry-heres-whats-next

Quote :

"Today, the ACLU launched three new federal marriage cases – in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia (this last as co-counsel with Lambda Legal). These cases are step two of our two-pronged, post-DOMA, post-Prop 8 plan for winning the freedom to marry nationwide."

Quote :

"the ACLU has launched an extraordinary fundraising campaign, Out for Freedom, to raise $10 million in special funds to ensure the success of our state-by-state marriage initiative. "

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-gaymarriage-states-20130709,0,5790268.story

Quote :

"Gay marriage advocates eye Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey Activists will focus efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in four U.S. states this year and next, hoping to capitalize on political momentum following Supreme Court victories for gay rights, the Freedom to Marry advocacy group said on Tuesday."

Quote :

"New Jersey is shaping up as a battleground as Democrat lawmakers seek enough votes to overturn Republican Governor Chris Christie's veto of same-sex marriage legislation last year."

So the stage is set for 2014.

I think 2016 will be a better year for this stuff though, Presidential election years tend to bring out a more favorable electorate, and generally the more time that passes, the more the polls change in favor.

[Edited on July 9, 2013 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2013 9:46:06 PM

http://www.wncn.com/story/22826532/ags-office-wont-oppose-aclu

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. - The North Carolina Attorney General's Office announced Friday that it would not oppose allowing six same-sex couples to amend a 2012 lawsuit challenging the state's ban on second parent adoptions to include additional claims challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages."

This Attorney General is letting this case go forward. Looks like Amendment 1 will get it's day in court.

7/12/2013 3:07:10 PM

http://www.wral.com/nc-to-stop-fighting-challenges-to-marriage-amendment-after-virginia-law-overturned/13846324/

Quote :

"NC to stop fighting challenges to marriage amendment after Virginia law overturned Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-to-stop-fighting-challenges-to-marriage-amendment-after-virginia-law-overturned/13846324/#Z8xcAQCrjGaQEFyK.99"

7/28/2014 5:09:09 PM

good

7/28/2014 6:01:26 PM

i wonder how many dollars have been wasted on this crap? if it eventually gets overturned how much more money will it cost to scrap the amendment? (I don't know what the process would be)

7/28/2014 6:40:17 PM

More judges that can't read and don't understand what the word "marriage" means. Just what we need.

7/28/2014 11:33:42 PM

having trouble understanding how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. i missed that day in caveman lawyer school i guess.

you cant marry your first cousin in NC. will a gay man be able to marry his male first cousin? what about opposite sex cousins? who is setting the rules here

govt should just get out of the marriage business all together

7/29/2014 7:53:51 AM

what about toasters? will my dog be able to marry my toaster?

7/29/2014 7:56:59 AM

Quote :

"More judges that can't read and don't understand what the word "marriage" means. Just what we need."

In terms of the legal, government issued marriage license, "marriage" is a union of two [or more] consenting adults, barring certain reasonable restrictions for health and safety (incest).

Quote :

"having trouble understanding how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. i missed that day in caveman lawyer school i guess. you cant marry your first cousin in NC. will a gay man be able to marry his male first cousin? what about opposite sex cousins? who is setting the rules here govt should just get out of the marriage business all together"

It violates the U.S. constitution? Just because a bunch of dumb hicks say, "yerrr, let's ban dem dere gayz" by adding an amendment to the state constitution, doesn't mean it's constitutional.

You can't marry certain kin due to health reasons. So why would that not apply to SSM couples? You know who is setting the rules. Same group of people as always.

[Edited on July 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2014 9:12:43 AM

Quote :

"More judges that can't read"

That's what's wrong with this country these days. Stupid citizens keep electing illiterate judges. Wake up people, we're going to hell in a hand basket!

7/29/2014 9:18:26 AM

Quote :

"having trouble understanding how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. i missed that day in caveman lawyer school i guess."

you are aware that there is a difference between the NC Constitution and the US Constitution, right? and that there is a completely different process for amending each of them?

I don't know about caveman lawyer school, but you did miss out on Civics 101 and/or School House Rock.

7/29/2014 12:16:16 PM

Quote :

"having trouble understanding how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. "

7/29/2014 12:22:59 PM

Quote :

"You can't marry certain kin due to health reasons. So why would that not apply to SSM couples?"

because same sex couples can't have children. so why would it apply?

if a guy wants to marry his brother then he should be able to right?

7/29/2014 3:11:53 PM

but the AIDS...

7/29/2014 3:28:02 PM

but who is going to protect all the children from the gays who want to marry and recruit them?

7/29/2014 3:44:33 PM

ice t

7/29/2014 4:22:05 PM

lol

10/6/2014 2:00:20 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage/

10/6/2014 3:43:18 PM

so sorry for all of the marriages that are now ruined because of the judges ruling this afternoon

OH WAIT

10/10/2014 6:43:58 PM

Brace yourself. The WRAL trolls are coming.

10/10/2014 6:45:10 PM

lawl, the judge made the ruling on religious freedom grounds...those sounds you hear are the heads of social conservatives across the state exploding.

10/10/2014 6:47:19 PM

smh how will i explain this to my future kids

10/10/2014 7:36:36 PM

They are keeping the courthouse open till 9pm so teh gay couples can get marriage license.

10/10/2014 7:40:49 PM

USING TAXPAYER MONEY NO DOUBT

10/10/2014 7:45:20 PM

I sure am glad I moved to Hawaii where the all the gays are already married so there aren't any single ones the gubment can force me to marry.

10/10/2014 7:49:00 PM

STUPID QUESTION

If two straight guys were to get married

would pro-same sex marriage people consider it solidarity or mockery?

10/10/2014 8:25:50 PM

so they will shut the fuck up now, yes?

10/10/2014 8:33:03 PM

^ I sure hope so. They still aren't married, though, no matter what they say

10/10/2014 8:45:43 PM

Awww, you're cute. Horribly incorrect about this whole marriage thing and have been from the jump, but cute.

10/10/2014 8:47:14 PM

Horribly wrong? about what? Judges that can't read? Judges that don't understand the law? Or the simple meaning of a word? What, exactly, am I wrong about?

10/10/2014 8:49:04 PM

Clearly burro knows more about the law than judges

10/10/2014 8:51:43 PM

They aren't exactly showing they understand it here. I'm ok with the end result, but I don't like how the sausage was made.

10/10/2014 8:53:47 PM

I and others have explained it to you dozens of times. You're either too dense to understand why you're incorrect on all the legalities and the linguistics involved or being intentionally obtuse. Either way I'm not willing to rehash it again. Just know you've been on the wrong side of this argument morally and have been on the wrong side of history. Congrats!

10/10/2014 8:54:44 PM

How am I on the wrong side of it "morally"? Do you even know what my "side" is? Having said that, marriage is between one man and one woman, period. That's how it has been understood for thousands of years. That some homosexuals are coming along and pretending otherwise doesn't change the facts.

10/10/2014 9:01:17 PM

are they gonna leave chicken alone

10/10/2014 9:04:22 PM

burro, what if I told you definitions could change over time?

10/10/2014 9:35:49 PM

Slavery is also a tradition as old as human history, it doesn't make it right, worth keeping, nor does it mean that when we decided that people could not be considered property did we somehow diminish the concept of property or the meaning of the word property. Tradition alone is not a legitimate reason to maintain an unjust law or set of laws.

Your asinine argument that it's not an equal protection issue because they are free to marry a woman is so easily eviscerated by the same argument that held in Loving vs. Virginia.

If seeing guy marriage bans being found unconstitutional on on numerous fronts (equal protection, freedom of religion, etc.) doesn't convince you, nothing will.

10/10/2014 9:50:44 PM

Slavery is also a tradition as old as human history, it doesn't make it right, worth keeping, nor does it mean that when we decided that people could not be considered property did we somehow diminish the concept of property or the meaning of the word property. Tradition alone is not a legitimate reason to maintain an unjust law or set of laws.

Your asinine argument that it's not an equal protection issue because they are free to marry a woman is so easily eviscerated by the same argument that held in Loving vs. Virginia.

If seeing guy marriage bans being found unconstitutional on on numerous fronts (equal protection, freedom of religion, etc.) doesn't convince you, nothing will.

10/10/2014 9:51:56 PM

Quote :

"How am I on the wrong side of it "morally"? Do you even know what my "side" is? Having said that, marriage is between one man and one woman, period. That's how it has been understood for thousands of years. That some homosexuals are coming along and pretending otherwise doesn't change the facts."

Too bad them gays are gonna get all married up in NC. Fabulous weddings and buttsex to follow. Suck on that one, repubtard

10/10/2014 10:09:16 PM

Also, polygamy, which is just as old as monogamous marriage, is not a thing according to burro.

10/10/2014 10:25:36 PM

whats next? people marrying viruses?

[Edited on October 10, 2014 at 11:59 PM. Reason : viruses are not even alive!]

10/10/2014 11:58:47 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

10/10/2014 11:59:03 PM

No no you see, gay men can get married, so they're not actually being deprived of equal protection, they just have to marry a woman not a man. Lesbians can get married, but it has to be to a man. No equal protection issue there!

No really, that has been burro's argument on this topic.

10/11/2014 12:17:27 AM

now that they have what they wanted, can we all start making fun of them again? Glad we can sweep this issue out the backdoor, finally.

10/11/2014 12:36:28 AM

Quote :

"Slavery is also a tradition as old as human history, it doesn't make it right, worth keeping, nor does it mean that when we decided that people could not be considered property did we somehow diminish the concept of property or the meaning of the word property. Tradition alone is not a legitimate reason to maintain an unjust law or set of laws. "

Who says I support those laws?

Quote :

"Your asinine argument that it's not an equal protection issue because they are free to marry a woman is so easily eviscerated by the same argument that held in Loving vs. Virginia."

And your asinine invocation of that case shows how little you know. Loving dealt with someone being THROWN IN JAIL for engaging in an activity that had absolutely nothing to do with the government. These cases involve the gov't saying "do whatever you want, but we won't recognize or grant any benefits to what you do."

Quote :

"Also, polygamy, which is just as old as monogamous marriage, is not a thing according to burro."

How is multiple marriages "not a thing"? You're really showing your ignorance at this point.

10/11/2014 12:55:18 AM

Quote :

"marriage is between one man and one woman, period. "

I understand your position (I think.) As a general rule, I object to the loosening and changing of definitions too.

But this isn't a purely academic matter: it's a matter that vitally concerns millions of people. And for that reason, why not extend the definition of marriage? It will allow lots of people to live happier existences, and will harm no one.

Are you objecting on religious grounds, if I may ask? If so, that's cool.

10/11/2014 1:05:20 AM