North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Constitutionally

[Jingthing]

North Carolina, a southern state with lot of northern residents, a state that went with President Obama in 2008 just passed a very right wing proposition banning state recognition of BOTH gay marriage AND civil unions at the state constitutional level. So much for the sadly naive idea that it's only gay marriage that our political enemies oppose.

Of course, nothing has changed. In the U.S. system the strategy for equal civil rights lies at the federal level, in the supreme court. OK, not quite the current supreme court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-17997794

North Carolina law already bans gay marriage but the vote enshrines this in the constitution.

Edited May 9, 2012 by craigt3365
formatting

[Markland]

I don't get it.The world is stupid.Gay people were born that way so that means it is natural

people who made up the bible and other religious notes were wind up merchants

Edited May 9, 2012 by Markland

[endure]

[media=]

[/media]

[cdnvic]

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday he supports same-sex marriage, raising the political stakes on an issue in which Americans are evenly split.

The announcement, long sought by supporters of same-sex marriage, puts Obama squarely at odds with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

"At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

Obama once opposed same-sex marriage. He later indicated his views were "evolving." His announcement Wednesday in support of same-sex marriage was the first by a sitting president.

A Gallup Poll released Tuesday indicated 50% of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with 48% saying such marriages should not be legal.

Full story:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[cdnvic]

See World News forum:

[robblok]

I don't get it.The world is stupid.Gay people were born that way so that means it is natural

people who made up the bible and other religious notes were wind up merchants

I think the problem is that bible humpers claim marriage is their invention and that its being soiled by gay marriages. I could not care less if 2 gays marry or not, if it makes them happy and helps them to more easily arrange fiscal and general rights then let them.

I always liked the more way here of gays, seems they don't have to hide as much. Not that there was much problems with gays in the Netherlands (except some extremist christians and muslims) But seems they are far more free here.

[Jingthing]

The LAST time the southern state of North Carolina amended its constitution regarding marriage (1875)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-last-time-north-carolina-amended-their-constit

North Carolina.

On the wrong side of history then.

On the wrong side of history now.

The scary part is it took them almost 100 years to fix the first outrage.

[FarangBuddha]

Well, since this thread apparently doesn't have to be Thai related, I'll throw in this tidbit of Southern lore as well: Before the SCOTUS declared all state laws banning same-sex intercourse to be unconstitutional, in Texas at the time, bestiality was legal (not a criminal offense) but homosexual intercourse was not. So apparently, the good people of Texas thought that sex with animals was okay but sex between two humans was not. Go figure?

[Bagwan]

I don't get it.The world is stupid.Gay people were born that way so that means it is natural

people who made up the bible and other religious notes were wind up merchants

I accept that homosexuals were born that way inclined, however I remeber a clever piece of graffiti which said "My mother made me a lesbian." Somebody with a great sense of humour wrote underneath, "If I send her the wool will she make me one?"

[Exsexyman]

Well, since this thread apparently doesn't have to be Thai related, I'll throw in this tidbit of Southern lore as well: Before the SCOTUS declared all state laws banning same-sex intercourse to be unconstitutional, in Texas at the time, bestiality was legal (not a criminal offense) but homosexual intercourse was not. So apparently, the good people of Texas thought that sex with animals was okay but sex between two humans was not. Go figure?

Isn't Dubya Bush from Texas? Ah,that explains the simian features, and the way his knuckles dragged on the floor when he walked. All has become clear!

[LeCharivari]

... In the U.S. system the strategy for equal civil rights lies at the federal level, in the supreme court. ...

Agreed, JT - that's the chosen strategy. Whether its the right strategy only time will tell ... and whether gay unions would have been acceptable if they hadn't been linked so strongly with gay marriage, we'll never know.

[Jingthing]

... In the U.S. system the strategy for equal civil rights lies at the federal level, in the supreme court. ...

Agreed, JT - that's the chosen strategy. Whether its the right strategy only time will tell ... and whether gay unions would have been acceptable if they hadn't been linked so strongly with gay marriage, we'll never know.

You still don't get it. The victory needs to be won by showing the unconstitutionality of gays being a special, excluded class for marriage in the supreme court. To say gays need to be in a special class with a different federal recognized coupling scheme would not be a constitutional argument. You're actually arguing AGAINST gay equality in the American constitutional context. Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

As regular posters here already know, gay-related material does not have to be Thai-related. As posting only to bring this up is considered trolling in the gay subforum and can earn warnings, I would strongly suggest new members read the subforum posting guidelines before falling afoul of them. Some posts removed.

[LeCharivari]

... In the U.S. system the strategy for equal civil rights lies at the federal level, in the supreme court. ...

Agreed, JT - that's the chosen strategy. Whether its the right strategy only time will tell ... and whether gay unions would have been acceptable if they hadn't been linked so strongly with gay marriage, we'll never know.

You still don't get it. The victory needs to be won by showing the unconstitutionality of gays being a special, excluded class for marriage in the supreme court. To say gays need to be in a special class with a different federal recognized coupling scheme would not be a constitutional argument. You're actually arguing AGAINST gay equality in the American constitutional context.

No, JT, what I've repeatedly said which you seem unwilling to accept is that "gay equality" in the US doesn't need to be a "constitutional argument" which can only be addressed "in the American constitutional context". It doesn't even need to be an "argument" at all.

it doesn't need to be "won" that way and it doesn't need to be a "victory", with one side winning and one side losing. Its going over the same old rather boring ground, but the problem is that the "American way", as you previously put it, is one of deliberate confrontation and there are other options which other countries with very similar constitutional, federal, and judicial systems and even similar cultures (if that's the right word) have followed which have resulted in the evolution of "gay equality" to a point where gay couples have identical de facto rights to straight couples and where the only remaining difference, which will inevitably go over time, is in terminology.

Australia has a very similar constitutional, federal and judicial system and even has the "ocker" element of the US "rednecks", as well as a very vocal and powerful religious element. Despite that Australian gays have nearly all the rights that Australian married couples have: taxation, health care, pensions, adoption, immigration, property rights on separation, even military housing. ... and all that without any federal (Commonwealth) laws on same sex marriage or changes to the constitution, and in spite of the 2004 Marriage Amendment Act defining marraige as a union between a man and a woman.

I'm not "actually arguing AGAINST gay equality in the American constitutional context" as I don't give a monkey's uncle about the American constitutional context in terms of gay or human rights and neither, I suspect, do the vast silent majority of American gay couples who simply want to have the same rights as a straight couple, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately for them rational thought, logical progress, pragmatism and human rights play as small a part in the thought processes of the gay movement as they do in the loony right and the equally loony left. "Gay equality", in practical terms, is of far less importance than "victory", however long it takes and however many gay American couples suffer in the meantime. That, unfortunately for many American gays, is the reality of your "American way".

[Jingthing]

Explain to me how American gay couples get eligibility for social security survivor's benefits unless they are in MARRIAGES recognized at the federal level? I don't see a path there. I do see a path towards marriage equality through some states BS hollow legal marriages as an incremental step, change in public opinion (ALREADY over half of Americans support MARRIAGE equality, yes marriage dude, beyond civil unions), favorable supreme court picks, and an eventual decisive case in the supreme court. I still think you don't get it. The strategy in play is in play because it is the most rational path towards the goal, real equality. And for real equality you need equality at the level of things like social security survivors benefits, immigration law, etc.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

I suspect that the gays who live in those states would welcome the BS hollow legal marriages and all the benefits they bring whilst the great battle goes on.

[LeCharivari]

... And for real equality you need equality at the level of things like social security survivors benefits, immigration law, etc.

aah ... you mean those things that gay couples "ALREADY" have in Australia without gay marriage, such as the interdependency visa which has been in existence since 1985?

If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts. The "path" you "don't see" is very clear, with a clear example to follow, but unless you make the effort to move the telescope from your right to your left eye you really won't see the signals, Horatio.

[Jingthing]

I suspect that the gays who live in those states would welcome the BS hollow legal marriages and all the benefits they bring whilst the great battle goes on.

Then they can move to the few states with BS legal marriages NOW. But those marriages are worthless for the more important federal things and of course aren't recognized in most other U.S. The U.S. has ... 50 states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state

[Jingthing]

... And for real equality you need equality at the level of things like social security survivors benefits, immigration law, etc.

aah ... you mean those things that gay couples "ALREADY" have in Australia without gay marriage, such as the interdependency visa which has been in existence since 1985?

If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts. The "path" you "don't see" is very clear, with a clear example to follow, but unless you make the effort to move the telescope from your right to your left eye you really won't see the signals, Horatio.

You keep trying to sell this fantasy that Australia is the same country as America, and it is complete rubbish.

I've been reading the subtext of your rants for many months now and it is obvious to me your thing is to blame American gay activists for their lack of success compared to countries like the UK and Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your men in skirts comment is homophobic.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

I suspect that the gays who live in those states would welcome the BS hollow legal marriages and all the benefits they bring whilst the great battle goes on.

Then they can move to the few states with BS legal marriages NOW. But those marriages are worthless for the more important federal things and of course aren't recognized in most other U.S. The U.S. has ... 50 states.

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

I know that. We had history lessons at school.

[Jingthing]

I suspect that the gays who live in those states would welcome the BS hollow legal marriages and all the benefits they bring whilst the great battle goes on.

Then they can move to the few states with BS legal marriages NOW. But those marriages are worthless for the more important federal things and of course aren't recognized in most other U.S. The U.S. has ... 50 states.

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

I know that. We had history lessons at school.

Sometimes you post really weird stuff. I know you are no child. Most of these laws changed in recent years, including the many states that have passed anti-gay constitutional amendments.

[endure]

... And for real equality you need equality at the level of things like social security survivors benefits, immigration law, etc.

aah ... you mean those things that gay couples "ALREADY" have in Australia without gay marriage, such as the interdependency visa which has been in existence since 1985?

If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts. The "path" you "don't see" is very clear, with a clear example to follow, but unless you make the effort to move the telescope from your right to your left eye you really won't see the signals, Horatio.

You keep trying to sell this fantasy that Australia is the same country as America, and it is complete rubbish.

I've been reading the subtext of your rants for many months now and it is obvious to me your thing is to blame American gay activists for the lack of success of countries like the UK and Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your men in skirts comment is homophobic.

In what way do the UK and Australia 'lack success'? We have all the rights and privileges that most gays in the US don't. Admittedly we don't have 'marriage' but we have it in all but name.

[Jingthing]

... And for real equality you need equality at the level of things like social security survivors benefits, immigration law, etc.

aah ... you mean those things that gay couples "ALREADY" have in Australia without gay marriage, such as the interdependency visa which has been in existence since 1985?

If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts. The "path" you "don't see" is very clear, with a clear example to follow, but unless you make the effort to move the telescope from your right to your left eye you really won't see the signals, Horatio.

You keep trying to sell this fantasy that Australia is the same country as America, and it is complete rubbish.

I've been reading the subtext of your rants for many months now and it is obvious to me your thing is to blame American gay activists for the lack of success of countries like the UK and Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your men in skirts comment is homophobic.

In what way do the UK and Australia 'lack success'? We have all the rights and privileges that most gays in the US don't. Admittedly we don't have 'marriage' but we have it in all but name.

Excuse me, but it was a posting error. Thanks for pointing it out. Here is the corrected version. The comment, BTW, is directed to another poster:

I've been reading the subtext of your rants for many months now and it is obvious to me your thing is to blame American gay activists for their lack of success compared to countries like the UK and Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I agree that powerful civil unions nationally recognized are better than the current horrid state of progress in the US, even with the few states having BS legal gay marriages that mean ZILCH at the federal level.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

You keep trying to sell this fantasy that Australia is the same country as America, and it is complete rubbish.

I've been reading the subtext of your rants for many months now and it is obvious to me your thing is to blame American gay activists for their lack of success compared to countries like the UK and Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your men in skirts comment is homophobic.

My rants?? Do you ever read what you post?

I have never suggested "that Australia is the same country as America" - that is absolute rubbish!

What I have suggested, following your argument that the USA is so different constitutionally, federally, judicially etc, to the UK that it cannot follow the UK's example, is that Australia has a very similar constitution, etc, so the gay lobby in the USA could have followed their example but chose not to.

I don't have a "thing" about American gay activists any more than I do about any others, such as Peter Tatchell in the UK, or the Anjaree Foundation and the SDN who I consider are responsible for the lack of success of pro-gay legislation in Thailand, as I have said before. What I do have is respect for Mao's view that "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat". Your cat's missing the mouse.

Edited May 14, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Its nauseating simplistic to suggest that the Australian situation and the American situation are the same over the issue of gay equality. Your assertion that just because the governmental structures superficially sound similar doesn't cut it. The ACTUAL differences between the political situation over the gay issue between Australia and the USA could fill many books, so no point in even getting started. Yet that's your best shot, and it is totally baseless. You haven't convinced me at all that this isn't about your personal distaste (and also ridiculous and false stereotypes about) for gay activists. Some of the most important American gay activists haven't even been gay and most I can assure you don't go around in dresses. I noticed you didn't try to defend you skirts comment as it was indefensible, but in my view it reveals your true self (available to anyone who has followed your posts here anyway).

Some of our more recent American heroes (happy heterosexuals):

Ted Olson

http://www.npr.org/2...y-legal-warrior

Gavin Newsom

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Yawn .... first the UK example doesn't apply because the constitution, federal system, etc are so different. Now the Australian example doesn't apply because even though the constitution and federal system are similar now its the "situation" that's so different. What's the next excuse?

My comment on "the GLF and large men in skirts" had nothing to do with current gay activists. Things get even more boring when you quote me out of context. My point was that "If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts". I could have added that that was how many at that time saw "gay rights" just as they saw women in trousers burning their bras as typifying "women's rights", but I didn't think it was necessary. As I've said elsewhere, if you're still stuck in that era that's your problem, not mine.

[Ijustwannateach]

I'm going to jump in here, again to stop the bickering, and declare both of you off-topic. This is neither about America in general nor is about Australian law. Please keep this topic centered on North Carolina with tangents limited- if absolutely necessary and somehow relevant to NC- to the US. If you want to go back to a full scale discussion of international gay marriage, please resurrect one of the previous threads if you have anything new to say.

[Jingthing]

Fine with me. Anyway, its sad that NC has rejected both gay marriages AND gay civil unions. That makes the ENTIRE SOUTHERN USA a gay marriage free zone. NC is among the more "liberal" states in the south and this is what they do.

[Ijustwannateach]

^It will be interesting to see how this 'rewards' them economically over time.

[Jingthing]

It will be interesting to see how NC votes in the prez. election. Last time they went Obama and that was major. This time there seems to no hope, but given that very few people vote gay rights issues as a top issue in presidential races, maybe it's still possible.