Submitted by usernamehere on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:47pm.
The bigot brigades, who do nothing to urge legislators to stem heterosexual divorce in NC but hysterically want to destroy marriage equality for all citizens in NC, are coming for a rally at the legislature in less than a month.
They've been planning this rally since the last one in 2007 where hordes of private school children roamed the Halifax Mall inflating the crowd numbers.
It will be interesting to see if the NC division of the American Taliban again decides to close their schools and stop educating children just to teach some good old-fashioned mob bigotry. Old habits do die hard, don't they?
I wonder how the budget-challenged bigots plan to ask legislators to appropriate the millions it will cost to put an amendment on the ballot when the state faces such a budget shortfall.
We know the bigots don't care about their fellow gay and lesbian citizens, now they're showing that they don't care about taxpayer money either.
And that was the cost in 2007. Now we have more voters on the rolls after the 2008 election. Wonder what the cost would be now...
of a clear and bright separation of church and state.
Legal matters involving contractual relationships, including contracts between two people of any gender or sexuality, on matters such as property, finances, and child-rearing, are the proper business of a secular government.
Religious belief is the only reason I can come up with for prohibiting two people from being able to enter into such a contract. Specifically, belief enters the equation when the word marriage is spoken.
Though I do so reluctantly, I believe we must split the words marriage and contract in half. Let churches create marriages for people - or not - depending on their beliefs. If a certain church comes to the conclusion that two men should not marry, good for them! Yay! Churches get to decide what marriage is. For themselves.
Marriage contracts, on the other hand, are instruments governed by, well, government. The institution is secular.
Governments can decide what they want to call their contracts (I recommend not using the word "marriage."), but they cannot decide who may enter said contracts. If ten people willingly enter into contractual agreements to share property and raise children together, who are we to say they can't.
I don't know if this answers your question about courts. But if being in favor of the Constitution means I'm in favor of activist courts, I guess I am.
Government and religion, combined, has done nothing but demonstrate humanity's inhumnaity...again and again and again. "Clear and bright" if we are to remain a nation...worthy of representing all it's people.
Submitted by Robert P. on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 7:24pm.
You have it right. Even if it worked the other way, where LGBT couples could only have legal contracts for some rights and were married in churches.
I would also like to see NC end the hypocrisy about marriage versus divorce. I wish the Democrats would have the balls to ask for the same waiting period to get married as you need to get divorced. I think if most people had to be legally engaged for one year, the same way you have to be legally separated for one year, we would see less divorce in the long run.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Submitted by usernamehere on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:34pm.
Federal court decisions like this one provide an example for one path.
Or perhaps you suggest making all marriage contracts a matter of civil law, leaving religious blessings to religious institutions to grant at their will?
Actually, either level of court. I'm just wondering what would be a path for proponents of same-sex marriage to use the courts to overturn current law in North Carolina and do the progressives in this state consider use of the courts as an important tool in making same-sex marriage legal in this state?
Submitted by usernamehere on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 1:22pm.
I'm pretty sure supporters and opponents pretty much know that's where the federal question eventually leads.
Speaking for myself only (I'm not sure I'm really a fully qualified "progressive") on the state court question, such an issue would ultimately reach the state supreme court, which I don't think is favorably disposed to this question currently.
Still, citizens should be able to seek relief for injustice in the courts, but it is wise to be sure you'll win when you get to the court.
Since you like basketball analogies in politics, there's no need to just play one type of offense (or defense) when several are available to you.
Submitted by crowbar317 on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 1:42am.
think that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Amendment 14:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Submitted by chun yang on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 12:55pm.
Having marriage legal for all is important to me. How do I tell my son that marriage is good for society when our gay neighbors live in sin? Seriously - I know I am making a joke, too, but what opponents of marriage equality say is that it is okay for straight couples, beneficial to the children and the community, but gay couples just have to not contribute to the greater morality - they just have to keep on "shacking up" with few or no legal protections. Stable families are a common good, and should be encouraged. The idea of those sweet-faced kids in the video being forced to deal with instant divorce of their parents by outside forces is unspeakably cruel. I think almost NO anti-equality organization will say they want gay relationships criminalized; most know they have lost that battle long ago.Many will even tolerate civil unions as long as marriage is off the table. So I have to say, why do they want to keep people from marriage?
I have been married to my one and only husband since 1984. Two people who have been together decades, like some in that video, deserve the recognition of a legal marriage, if they want it. Shame on society for denying them!
You'll see more hate from NCFPC & others on March 3 in Raleigh
The bigot brigades, who do nothing to urge legislators to stem heterosexual divorce in NC but hysterically want to destroy marriage equality for all citizens in NC, are coming for a rally at the legislature in less than a month.
They've been planning this rally since the last one in 2007 where hordes of private school children roamed the Halifax Mall inflating the crowd numbers.
It will be interesting to see if the NC division of the American Taliban again decides to close their schools and stop educating children just to teach some good old-fashioned mob bigotry. Old habits do die hard, don't they?
I wonder how the budget-challenged bigots plan to ask legislators to appropriate the millions it will cost to put an amendment on the ballot when the state faces such a budget shortfall.
We know the bigots don't care about their fellow gay and lesbian citizens, now they're showing that they don't care about taxpayer money either.
And that was the cost in 2007. Now we have more voters on the rolls after the 2008 election. Wonder what the cost would be now...
Policy goal?
James: Is it a policy goal of yours to have same-sex marriage become legal in the state of North Carolina?
Do you think proponents of same-sex marriage in this state should use the courts to have their goals become law?
I am a zealous proponent
of a clear and bright separation of church and state.
Legal matters involving contractual relationships, including contracts between two people of any gender or sexuality, on matters such as property, finances, and child-rearing, are the proper business of a secular government.
Religious belief is the only reason I can come up with for prohibiting two people from being able to enter into such a contract. Specifically, belief enters the equation when the word marriage is spoken.
Though I do so reluctantly, I believe we must split the words marriage and contract in half. Let churches create marriages for people - or not - depending on their beliefs. If a certain church comes to the conclusion that two men should not marry, good for them! Yay! Churches get to decide what marriage is. For themselves.
Marriage contracts, on the other hand, are instruments governed by, well, government. The institution is secular.
Governments can decide what they want to call their contracts (I recommend not using the word "marriage."), but they cannot decide who may enter said contracts. If ten people willingly enter into contractual agreements to share property and raise children together, who are we to say they can't.
I don't know if this answers your question about courts. But if being in favor of the Constitution means I'm in favor of activist courts, I guess I am.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
You said it well, James, very well!
Government and religion, combined, has done nothing but demonstrate humanity's inhumnaity...again and again and again. "Clear and bright" if we are to remain a nation...worthy of representing all it's people.
Stan Bozarth
clear separation.
You have it right. Even if it worked the other way, where LGBT couples could only have legal contracts for some rights and were married in churches.
I would also like to see NC end the hypocrisy about marriage versus divorce. I wish the Democrats would have the balls to ask for the same waiting period to get married as you need to get divorced. I think if most people had to be legally engaged for one year, the same way you have to be legally separated for one year, we would see less divorce in the long run.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Does your question refer to state or federal courts?
Federal court decisions like this one provide an example for one path.
Or perhaps you suggest making all marriage contracts a matter of civil law, leaving religious blessings to religious institutions to grant at their will?
Either court
Actually, either level of court. I'm just wondering what would be a path for proponents of same-sex marriage to use the courts to overturn current law in North Carolina and do the progressives in this state consider use of the courts as an important tool in making same-sex marriage legal in this state?
Answer to federal level is above
I'm pretty sure supporters and opponents pretty much know that's where the federal question eventually leads.
Speaking for myself only (I'm not sure I'm really a fully qualified "progressive") on the state court question, such an issue would ultimately reach the state supreme court, which I don't think is favorably disposed to this question currently.
Still, citizens should be able to seek relief for injustice in the courts, but it is wise to be sure you'll win when you get to the court.
Since you like basketball analogies in politics, there's no need to just play one type of offense (or defense) when several are available to you.
I, for one
think that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Amendment 14:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Don't Be Hating
Just in case they don't understand the words, "Love One Another".
That is a powerful video.
separate is not equal
Having marriage legal for all is important to me. How do I tell my son that marriage is good for society when our gay neighbors live in sin? Seriously - I know I am making a joke, too, but what opponents of marriage equality say is that it is okay for straight couples, beneficial to the children and the community, but gay couples just have to not contribute to the greater morality - they just have to keep on "shacking up" with few or no legal protections. Stable families are a common good, and should be encouraged. The idea of those sweet-faced kids in the video being forced to deal with instant divorce of their parents by outside forces is unspeakably cruel. I think almost NO anti-equality organization will say they want gay relationships criminalized; most know they have lost that battle long ago.Many will even tolerate civil unions as long as marriage is off the table. So I have to say, why do they want to keep people from marriage?
I have been married to my one and only husband since 1984. Two people who have been together decades, like some in that video, deserve the recognition of a legal marriage, if they want it. Shame on society for denying them!