Are gay divorces legal in NC yet?

10/11/2014 1:06:02 AM

Quote :

"Having said that, marriage is between one man and one woman, period."

come on, dude. stop being a dicksuck about this. There's a part of me that agrees with that definition-the personal part of me. Culturally, I'll admit, when I see a gay/lesbian couple who are "married", in my mind, it's more like they're just really serious girlfriends or boyfriends, kinda like a straight couple who have lived together for years but aren't married...but that has nothing to do with this argument, because this argument is in the legal arena and concerning a legal definition.

the real answer is for government to have fucking nothing to do with marriage; for it to be a ceremonial/religious thing, and you can marry 6 women/3 dudes/10 trannies/all of the above, because who fucking cares. Call your arrangement "marriage" if you want, or not, and don't worry about what other people are doing or what label they apply to the person they're humping.

It should have no tax benefits, etc. If you want to contractually combine your assets or other interests, you could do that just like with any other adult that you aren't banging or referring to yourself as "married to". Same thing with wills, living wills, medical decisions, etc.

Decide you want to call yourself "divorced" now? All that contractual shit would already have provisions for that. Custody issues? No big deal, I can tell you from experience that marital status makes no difference other than that there is no assumption of paternity, and that can be handled with a cheap and easy DNA test.





...but in the meantime, since we're nowhere near culturally ready for all of the above, the next best thing is to not discriminate with the application of current legal provisions, and to that end, the legal definition must be fully inclusive of homosexuals.

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 1:15 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2014 1:08:39 AM

Quote :

"Loving dealt with someone being THROWN IN JAIL."

You're truly a wonder.

Go and read or at least familiarize yourself with the basics of some of the challenges to same sex marriage bans in states nationwide and you can find Loving being used as legal precedent for those laws being found unconstitutional by state supreme courts and federal circuit courts.

One need not arrest and THROW IN JAIL gay couples for attempting to obtain a marriage license for those laws to be found discriminatory and unconstitutional. There does not need to be an identical situation for precedent to apply. You could draft legislation that outlawed printing the word "duck", never see someone go to prison for printing the word duck, and still watch it get challenged and found unconstitutional.

Quote :

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

Polygamy - the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time.

Quote :

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

Pick a stance, please.

10/11/2014 1:13:51 AM

Oh no, now I'm going to turn gay and get gay married.

10/11/2014 1:20:14 AM

I just hope the new husband you are forced to wed has a thin cock.

10/11/2014 1:21:17 AM

Maybe now we can move towards everyone paying taxes as an individual without different sets of rules depending on who you happen to live with, without the Focus On the Family crowd crowing about it destroying humanity as we know it.

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 1:21 AM. Reason : ^, ^^ haha]

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 1:22 AM. Reason : ^a tiny little schlort, if you will.]

10/11/2014 1:21:22 AM

That would be great, and whoever proposed such legislation and anyone who supported it would immediately be out on their asses in the next election.

How else are we going to accomplish societal engineering without sticks and carrots in our tax code?

10/11/2014 1:23:27 AM

Quote :

"Maybe now we can move towards everyone paying taxes as an individual without different sets of rules depending on who you happen to live with, without the Focus On the Family crowd crowing about it destroying humanity as we know it."

This will never happen, because Focus On the Family crowd doesn't believe in people being equal.

10/11/2014 1:30:48 AM

Quote :

"And for that reason, why not extend the definition of marriage?"

Why do you need to? Why not just pass new laws, instead of "amending" laws by pretending a word means something different. If you can't get enough people to agree with you, then tough tits, keep making the case.

Quote :

"Polygamy - the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time."

You really don't get it, do you? What if I told you that each spouse was through a *gasp* separate marriage *gasp*. You are suggesting the definition of "one man, one woman" necessarily means one man has only one wife at a time, which is logically not supported by the actual definition. Oh shit, I think I just crushed your little "argument." Go back to your room and think a little more.

10/11/2014 1:33:12 AM

Excepting the fact that we are talking about legal definitions and not semantic definitions, as always. Which seems to be the thing you refuse to grasp. Clearly you can grasp it, you just refuse to have the same argument as everyone else and repeatedly declare yourself the winner.

No one other than you is actually concerned with what Webster's has to say on the matter, it's all about the legal impact. Polygamy is a form of marriage. Polygamous marriages are not legally recognized, and can result in people BEING THROWN IN JAIL.

10/11/2014 1:45:00 AM

I'd say that multiple marriages should not be grounds for someone to be thrown in jail, assuming all parties involved consent and are able to consent to a marriage. Hell, even if we wanted to go to crazy town and talk about three people joining themselves together, that should be legal.

And, the meaning of word does have bearing on the issue, since laws are made up of, you know, words. And it's patently absurd to even begin to believe that, when the marriage laws in the US were written, those laws even remotely entertained the idea that "marriage" included unions of two men, especially considering that the consumation of such a "marriage" was likely illegal.

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 2:03 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2014 2:01:10 AM

Quote :

"Hell, even if we wanted to go to crazy town and talk about three people joining themselves together, that should be legal."

So two people of the same sex being joined together is fine as long as they're joined to a person of the opposite sex, but not if they're just joined to each other?

10/11/2014 2:17:38 AM

aaronburro, do the meaning of words never change?

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 2:19 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2014 2:18:15 AM

If I ever move back to NC, I'm going to get gay married to a black guy, cheat on my husband with an unmarried woman, impregnate her, coerce her into getting an abortion, and then eventually divorce my husband. God bless America

10/11/2014 2:35:13 AM

^^That's the wrong argument; it doesn't matter. What matters is the legal definition, which most certainly changes, and need not mirror the colloquial definition.

When we talk about that dude who recently killed his mother with a hammer, lost his virginity to her corpse (does nailing a corpse meet the definition of "losing virginity? I digress...), and stirred his fingers around in her brain to make sure she was dead, we might remark "what a completely insane motherfucker" (motherfucker both literally and colloquially)—and who would argue that if ANYONE is insane, it's this dude?

Yet, the legal definition of insanity is different and he was (rightfully, I think) not judged to be insane.

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 2:38 AM. Reason : ^^]

10/11/2014 2:38:02 AM

Equality.

10/11/2014 6:34:48 AM

all that money spent on that fucking law....wasted.

this is why we can't have nice things

10/11/2014 8:17:56 AM

I heard gay marriage causes Ebola.

10/11/2014 8:30:15 AM

burro hasn't figured out a legal argument against SSM in years; don't expect him to figure one out now.

10/11/2014 8:56:56 AM

Sheriff Deputy on front page of WRAL looked familiar. Sure enough I used to know him when he was married to a coworker and they had just had a daughter. He used to hate that people called him gay. Said he didn't understand why folks called him that. Methinks he was confused and in denial.

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2014 9:30:28 AM

I've got a few friends that have been saying "We're not getting married until everyone can get married"
I've always wondered if this was just an excuse to be noncommital or if this passive protest was for real. Guess now we'll get to find out.

10/11/2014 9:36:33 AM

Legal in Asheville now, shabam: http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/10/10/judge-strikes-nc-gay-marriage-ban/17053523/

Probably a lot of this going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jitocz4kB3k

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 9:40 AM. Reason : K&P]

10/11/2014 9:39:12 AM

The concept of marriage facilitates a lot of awful societal bullshit, but I'm glad anyone who wants to get married can get married.

10/11/2014 12:48:24 PM

Does anyone actually have close acquaintances that voted for A1? I hate to say that I did. Fucking joke.

10/11/2014 6:38:11 PM

I'm sure I have family that did, but I would not call them 'close'

10/11/2014 8:34:46 PM

My father really enjoys debating "hot button" issues with people. One thing I have always and will always stand for is marriage equality and basic human rights to every kind of person. Knowing that I usually brushed off 99% of his bait comments (because they are terrible and probably word for word something Rush has said at some point), he regularly would debate gay marriage and other LGBT topics.

He has a habit for baiting my brother in-law with environmental issues and basically dismissing global climate change as a conspiracy and other dumbass comments, he works for Conservation International. While debating his immediate family is something me and my other siblings are used to, it kind of stresses out anyone that we bring home because he purposefully finds the thing that will get them in a huff for his amusement?!?!

My father came to visit me not long after the amendment 1 voting, the first thing he said when he walked in my door was " I voted for amendment 1 ...." what he said after that I am not sure, I was beyond pissed, and really can't remember the ensuing conversation other than us breaking out immediately into a human rights argument. He is not exactly an active christian, if you can say he is at all. In the back of my head sometimes I think he voted for it just to piss me off.

Serves him right, I have gone through the gambit of "hippy tree-hugging" environmental cause as well as a proponan for LGBT rights, his other daughter works for NARAL as a grant writier

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2014 9:23:25 PM

Quote :

"My father really enjoys debating "hot button" issues with people. One thing I have always and will always stand for is marriage equality and basic human rights to every kind of person. Knowing that I usually brushed off 99% of his bait comments (because they are terrible and probably word for word something Rush has said at some point), he regularly would debate gay marriage and other LGBT topics. He has a habit for baiting my brother in-law with environmental issues and basically dismissing global climate change as a conspiracy and other dumbass comments, he works for Conservation International. While debating his immediate family is something me and my other siblings are used to, it kind of stresses out anyone that we bring home because he purposefully finds the thing that will get them in a huff for his amusement?!?! My father came to visit me not long after the amendment 1 voting, the first thing he said when he walked in my door was " I voted for amendment 1 ...." what he said after that I am not sure, I was beyond pissed, and really can't remember the ensuing conversation other than us breaking out immediately into a human rights argument. He is not exactly an active christian, if you can say he is at all. In the back of my head sometimes I think he voted for it just to piss me off. Serves him right, I have gone through the gambit of "hippy tree-hugging" environmental cause as well as a proponan for LGBT rights, his other daughter works for NARAL as a grant writier "

Are we related? I think we have the same dad.

10/11/2014 9:51:11 PM

^ fox news gets its viewership from somewhere. You are not the only one who suffers

and no, I do not think we are related but I also have zero idea who you are and I have a few family members that go to state, One of them being a cousin who's father is even worse somehow at this particular skill

[Edited on October 11, 2014 at 9:58 PM. Reason : anything is possible]

10/11/2014 9:57:42 PM

^My wife's grandmother married a giant douchebag that would do something similar. He never held an opinion either way, but would try to turn two people into an argument by bringing up a topic he knew they disagreed on.

He once did it to me at a holiday party. Someone friend of a relative of my wife's was discussing an article he read in some made up science uber-christian newsletter that fossils were fake and evolution was disproved. Everyone in the group was agreeing with him and nodding their heads, and I just figured I'd be polite and keep my mouth shut. The douchebag turned to me and said "Hey [Mtan Man214], you study Anthropology right? I bet you know a lot about evolution"

[fuck you old man]

10/11/2014 11:56:10 PM

10/12/2014 3:49:39 AM

ITT people realize they have trolls in their family

10/12/2014 10:22:31 AM

He's a keen mixer, that one.

10/12/2014 11:12:55 AM

^^^^ Are you sure he didn't also think they were stupid, and just wanted to drag you into it so you'd be forced to drop the hammer?

Quote :

"Does anyone actually have close acquaintances that voted for A1?"

Oh yeah, I know both my parents did, and I would expect that almost all my extended family did with the exception of my brother and cousin.

10/12/2014 4:09:07 PM

No. He was a dick to pretty much everyone, including my wife's grandmother.

Plus, there was nothing I could say to convince these people to think differently. They were JoCo bible thumpers. I have no interest in arguing with people over something like evolution. If they hold on to beliefs so strongly that they are willing to ignore logical, scientific based arguments made by those before me, then there's nothing a chubby white guy who's 3 bourbons into an awkward Christmas party will say to convince them otherwise.

I just lied and said I've never really studied it and then joined my wife's cousins outside for more bourbon and shit talking about the douchebag.

10/12/2014 4:24:44 PM

If you needed more examples of why democracy is a bad idea...

Honestly, just giving people the ability to vote is fucking stupid. There should be very, very stringent requirements. Everyone knows that you don't let the inmates run the asylum, but for some reason most people think that we need everyone to vote like that will produce the best outcome.

10/12/2014 4:40:10 PM

People should have to pay to vote. That would fix everything.

10/12/2014 5:21:22 PM

Nah, but there clearly need to be more requirements than being over 18 and living in the area.

Things like a blank ballot or even not putting party affiliation on the ballot would be nice since we insist on pretending that everyone's opinion is equally valid.

I'd be in favor of everyone having to take the same kind of citizenship test that people who are not citizens by birth have to take in order to achieve citizenship. Too many morons being manipulated by demagogues, too many people with no clue or ability to understand the implications of their decision voting.

[Edited on October 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM. Reason : sfsd]

10/12/2014 5:25:56 PM

People argue against requiring a free photo ID to vote. No way in hell requiring taking a test would fly. Because that's racist for some reason.

10/12/2014 5:41:53 PM

My plan will never happen, it would require a massive overhaul of the entire constitution, but it would be preferable to letting jimbo the redneck idiot who thinks the earth is flat vote simply because his mother shat out he and his 12 siblings here in 'merica.

Franchise is far too important a thing to just give away. It's had predictable results. There's a reason the founders tried to set up buffers against direct election. I'd prefer a king to what we have now.

10/12/2014 5:51:16 PM

If you don't love it, leave it.

10/12/2014 5:53:51 PM

Or, you know, try to improve it and change things by attempting to help causes and candidates you support.

10/12/2014 5:55:42 PM

By not allowing people who disagree with your views to vote.

10/12/2014 5:57:53 PM

I have no problem with people who disagree with my views. I just want people to actually know what the hell they're voting on instead of just checking the box because the name has a D or an R next to it or because their pastor/"community leader" told them that it's racist or will result in somebody coming to take their guns.

I don't think expecting people to have some modicum of understanding about the process they are participating in is asking too much.

I'd like to exclude active duty military and any state or federal employee from corresponding elections as well.

10/12/2014 6:02:54 PM

Quote :

"If you needed more examples of why democracy is a bad idea... Honestly, just giving people the ability to vote is fucking stupid. There should be very, very stringent requirements. Everyone knows that you don't let the inmates run the asylum, but for some reason most people think that we need everyone to vote like that will produce the best outcome. "

There's a reason the founding fathers used an electoral college instead of direct elections of the executive.

Originally, only the house was directly elected, the rest of government was not (senate, executive, judicial).

10/12/2014 6:05:26 PM

Quote :

"Franchise is far too important a thing to just give away. It's had predictable results. There's a reason the founders tried to set up buffers against direct election. I'd prefer a king to what we have now."

^Yeah, I know. It's also part of the reason only one house of the legislature is representative based on population.

10/12/2014 6:08:18 PM

You realize though if we were less democratic, we'd be a more progressive country...

10/12/2014 6:20:58 PM

In what sense?

On "social" issues like marijuana legalization, civil rights, etc. it seems very likely almost to a certainty. On fiscal issues I'm not so sure that's the case.

It would depend largely on who did get to vote and what kind of checks there were on the legislation that was written. Things like requiring a 2/3 or at minimum 3/5 majority to pass a bill would be great to have as well if we're talking about a total reboot of the country. Hell, simply not torturing the commerce clause to make every issue one which the fed can control would be a start in rectifying some problems.

10/12/2014 6:35:55 PM

I guess it would depend on if the robber-baron class took over, or the academic elite.

Probably the robber barons, in which case we'd probably be in mostly the same position as today.

10/12/2014 6:40:31 PM

The robber barons have taken over, that's where we currently are

10/12/2014 6:43:43 PM

Like I said, you'd have to do a lot more than just restrict who gets franchise. Things like the defacto 2 party system would have to go. You'd need to eliminate first past the post, introduce strict rules for how districts are drawn to reduce gerrymandering, set hard term limits (I'd like to see for example 1 5 year term for the legislature), change the committee structures, eliminate a lot of the presidential powers, etc. in order to make a representative system work.

10/12/2014 6:46:15 PM