Quote :

"Beethoven: Can you explain how this would result from the amendment? And how that is different from the way our legal system recognizes legal relationships now?"

Unfortunately I'm more articulate with the examples than I am at the explanations

Some examples:

==> North Carolina currently recognizes "common law" marriages from other states (man and woman live together, present themselves to community as husband and wife for X number of years, but never have an official ceremony). Although a common law marriage has "marriage" in its name, it's different from "marriage" as defined by the State, which requires "the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, in the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and with the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife." So these common law marriages become invalid under Amendment One and a "true" marriage will be required for these heterosexual couples to retain their legal rights.

==> North Carolina currently recognizes domestic partnerships / civil unions between heterosexual couples, most often seen in the context of the elderly. For example, if a woman's in her mid-70s and her husband died years ago, and she's cohabiting with a guy in his mid-70s whose wife died years ago, the State would recognize a legal relationship between the two for purposes of requesting hospital visitation, making emergency medical care decisions in the event of the other's incapacity, etc. Like with the common law marriage though, the relationship recognized in this context isn't a full "marriage" as recognized by the state, so if the amendment is adopted the courts would no longer be permitted to recognize it. The two old folks would either have to get a full marriage, or not be able to make decisions for the other even if they intend to do so.

In both of these examples, you also have the added problem of people not realizing their rights have been stripped until it comes time to deal with something legal. I doubt many people in a non-marriage domestic union recognize their relationship is going to be invalidated -- it won't come up until one of them is in the hospital and the other can't come visit.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ---]

4/16/2012 5:16:30 PM

Quote :

"Not really... because if someone is a christian, then they believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, and they were man and wife. Honestly, I feel that Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, in pretty much all cultures. Marriage is a covenant between a man, his wife, and God. In that respect, the government shouldn't even define marriage at all, considering they don't have the power to designate people married or not; that should be left up to God. When the government uses the word marriage, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because they honestly don't control that. What they do have the power to do, is grant them tax benefits and other benefits because they are together. If they want to give benefits to gay people, go for it, just don't force any church to marry them. As for a secular argument, here is one I have seen: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts Also, in many cases, rights are given and taken based on personal choices. If someone chooses to commit a crime, or to opt out of signing up for something, they omit their right. Love is a choice, you choose who to love and who not to love. By loving someone of the same sex, you are the one who is choosing to omit your right to marriage. The right has not been taken from you, it's up to you whether you exercise it or not, you just have to meet a set of qualifications."

quoting this down syndrome level post from Roflpack for page 3

4/16/2012 5:17:32 PM

Quote :

"so these common law marriages become invalid and a "true" marriage will be required for these couples to retain their legal rights."

Okay, your example makes sense. I wasn't sure if people were thinking you can get a common law marriage in NC (you can't, as you've pointed out), or just that they would lose other rights.

I believe you can achieve the things in your second example, but only by jumping through a lot of legal hoops, which is basically what you would need to do now (Power of Attorney, medical power of attorney, etc), and I can see why that is unappealing for many.

4/16/2012 5:22:41 PM

Quote :

"just don't force any church to marry them"

Which churches would these be exactly?

4/16/2012 5:25:35 PM

^^
I believe that's probably right, but that's part of the problem right there -- it's just a belief. No one knows for sure b/c of the process used for scheduling the referendum and the imprecise wording of the amendment itself.

Found this on findlaw.com that offers some additional details (though geared towards drumming up business for family law attorneys): http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2012/Feb/509221.html

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ---]

4/16/2012 5:50:54 PM

that link to the secular argument against gay marriage is very interesting, and definitely made me think

4/16/2012 6:01:39 PM

Quote :

"So... if this NC marriage amendment on May 8th passes as written then no civil unions will be recognized in the state of North Carolina. This means that any couple married by the Justice of the Peace or outside the church will not be recognozed as married in the state of North Carolina under its Laws and constitution."

Just saw this posted. I can hardly believe this is true. I think the Amendment is likely ridiculous and should be voted down, but I can hardly see that this is accurate. Am I wrong here?

4/16/2012 7:17:16 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, I feel that Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, in pretty much all cultures. Marriage is a covenant between a man, his wife, and God."

Let's forget about societies that would have religious binding ceremonies for same sex people. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Romans and Thais.

^ they had a lawyer on NPR yesterday explaining that exact scenario. I don't remember what she said but it was interesting. If you go on WUNC's website they have a big section on it.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 7:35 PM. Reason : R]

4/16/2012 7:32:51 PM

4/16/2012 7:34:29 PM

Quote :

"Beethoven: Just saw this posted. I can hardly believe this is true. I think the Amendment is likely ridiculous and should be voted down, but I can hardly see that this is accurate. Am I wrong here?"

I didn't hear the NPR segment this the comment is supposedly based on, so I've only got what you've written here to go off of -- I'd say that's "true" in a literalist sense but totally misleading.

We don't have justices of the peace in NC; we have magistrates. Either an oath before a magistrate or a ceremony before a minister are required for a marriage in NC, so anyone "married by the Justice of the Peace or outside the church" would be invalidated b/c it would be no different than any other non-marriage union from another state. But secular marriages before a magistrate would still be possible.

4/16/2012 9:10:34 PM

just wow at that Roflpack post

4/16/2012 9:20:15 PM

^^Yeah, one of my friends just responded with essentially that. I'm definitely against this amendment, but scare tactics such as stating it will nullify existing legal marriages is not the right way to go about fighting it.

4/16/2012 9:47:48 PM

Quote :

"but scare tactics such as stating it will nullify existing legal marriages is not the right way to go about fighting it."

I haven't heard anyone say that. But I have heard people saying that it would have legal ramifications for other types of unions.

4/17/2012 2:06:57 PM

Quote :

"that link to the secular argument against gay marriage is very interesting, and definitely made me think"

so basically what that editorial is stating is that the State shouldn't recognize Gay marriage because it's not in the States best interest which is human reproduction. all I have to say to that is....


GAAAAAAAAAY!!

4/17/2012 2:22:11 PM

Quote :

"I haven't heard anyone say that. But I have heard people saying that it would have legal ramifications for other types of unions."

That was specifically the argument that I had posted in here last night (copied from some girl's fb that I don't know). Once my friend responded saying that's not at all what the amendment says, she took down her facebook post on the subject. Basically, her post stated that if we didn't vote against Amendment 1 on May 8, her marriage, and countless others would be nullified if they happened outside of a church...

It was ridiculous. There's enough WRONG with this, that you don't have to make up stuff!

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2012 2:32:12 PM

oh haha I get it now Yeah she dumb.

4/17/2012 2:32:57 PM

what's next?

marrying horses?

4/17/2012 2:40:27 PM

I love lamp

4/17/2012 3:11:26 PM

which option is cheaper for me

4/17/2012 3:14:11 PM

Voting against it. Just because it passes doesn't mean there will be an end to the legal challenges.

4/17/2012 3:35:36 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, I feel that Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, in pretty much all cultures. Marriage is a covenant between a man, his wife, and God"

at least you recognize that you "feel" that way, not that it's true

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM. Reason : because it definitely HAS NOT always been a religious ceremony]

4/17/2012 9:18:27 PM

i dont know jack shit about Amendment 1 but I do know that I'm voting against it because I keep seeing signs everywhere

4/17/2012 9:20:45 PM

Marriage is a sacrement of the church and the church is very specific on that. It says that marriage is a union bound by God between a man and a woman. It is not simply a civil union that you pick up on a piece of paper at the court house. Even though many people think this way.

4/17/2012 10:00:20 PM

Quote :

"It says that marriage is a union bound by God between a man and a woman."

And what about the churches that say otherwise?

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2012 10:01:35 PM

^^ so non-religious people can't be married?

4/17/2012 10:02:16 PM

i'm so glad there's nothing like

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

cuz that would really put a damper on things for the whole bible definition of marriage.

4/17/2012 10:02:30 PM

do it for the cats.

4/17/2012 10:04:37 PM

Quote :

"Marriage is a sacrement of the church and the church is very specific on that. It says that marriage is a union bound by God between a man and a woman. It is not simply a civil union that you pick up on a piece of paper at the court house. Even though many people think this way. "

Nothing in this post is an argument for the amendment. Opponents aren't fighting to be bound in a union by God.

4/17/2012 10:11:04 PM

Ernie and I have a common law marriage

4/17/2012 10:13:09 PM

We're gonna make it official one day

Going to chatterbox gonna get married

4/17/2012 10:15:09 PM

Only premies are invited

4/17/2012 10:17:14 PM

I don't know if God recognizes that union or not but the Bible is very clear on what marriage is. I don't know why unreligious people would want to be married if they don't believe in God...other than governmental things.

4/17/2012 10:18:50 PM

lol

4/17/2012 10:20:20 PM

Don't take this wrong way bigun

But I hope you die soon

4/17/2012 10:21:06 PM

in the nicest way possible of course

4/17/2012 10:21:29 PM

Ernie, the reason same sex people can't be married is because it isn't recongnized by God so my statement had everything to do with amendment 1. They can have a civil union just don't call it marriage because that isn't what they are. The Bible is very clear that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman and same sex relationships are an abomination against nature and God.

Do you believe that the boy scouts of America should be forced to admit girls even though the definition of boy scouts would be boys.

Same sex marriage is impossible to have. They can call it a civil union just not marriage. The terminology is everything.

4/17/2012 10:23:16 PM

that statement makes me want to call a thousand more folks and urge them to vote against this amendment

4/17/2012 10:24:36 PM

Quote :

"you: It says that marriage is a union bound by God between a man and a woman. me: And what about the churches that say otherwise?"

bigun20, answer this please since you are obviously the resident biblical scholar.

4/17/2012 10:25:14 PM

^^ Just telling it like it is my friend.

4/17/2012 10:25:35 PM

I don't recall ever voting God into office

I tend to drink til I forget from time to time, so maybe I did while on a bender

4/17/2012 10:25:55 PM

Quote :

"the reason same sex people can't be married is because it isn't recongnized by God "

No, they can't be married because it's banned by the state.

Quote :

"They can have a civil union just don't call it marriage because that isn't what they are."

DEAL

Quote :

"Do you believe that the boy scouts of America should be forced to admit girls even though the definition of boy scouts would be boys. "

The Boy Scouts are a private organization.

Quote :

"The terminology is everything."

You're right, that's why this ballot is some bullshit.

4/17/2012 10:26:22 PM

I wonder the percentage of boys that went through boy scouts that are also gay

4/17/2012 10:27:23 PM

I would say that those churches don't base themselves or their message on the Bible.

4/17/2012 10:27:57 PM

Neither does the state of North Carolina.

4/17/2012 10:28:40 PM

so you're a proponent of Theocracies?

4/17/2012 10:28:52 PM

^^^^^We can agree. If it were gay unions not gay marriage there wouldn't be near the uproar.

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2012 10:29:58 PM

I have the best common law husband

but for real...the way they're presenting this amendment on the ballot is the biggest controversy

it wasn't how it was presented in the beginning (I know it's been said), but i think it's some bullshit

4/17/2012 10:30:06 PM

Quote :

"If it were gay unions not gay marriage there wouldn't be near the uproar."

It's both

4/17/2012 10:30:56 PM

Goodnight, sweet prince(according to bigun20)

4/17/2012 10:30:59 PM

i am obviously too lazy to find statistics but...

what like 50% of all marriages end in divorce

75% of Americans attend church/believe in God, etc...

Marriage ain't exactly sacred anymore people so GTFOVERIT

besides, this is about what the STATE, not the Bible, not Jesus, not God, not the Holy Ghost say is marriage.

4/17/2012 10:33:46 PM