Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EveryZig]

We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

You forgot to mention the part where they are holding the vote for it on the primary day, in hopes that less democrats will come.

And also the fact that gay marriage isn't actually legal in NC to begin with; they just want to make it more illegal.

[RedKing]

Kannapolis PD has said they're investigating, and at bare minimum he could be facing charges for unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.

Looked like a light-gauge gun, probably a .410 with pellet shot based on the size of the holes in the paper. So while it was intended as a snarky asshole prank cause "screw them queers, dude", here's hoping it comes back to bite the dude in the ass hard. Although I'm sure if he does, he'll become a poster-boy for FOX News and the like, screaming how he's being made an example of by "the extremist gay activist lobby".

Best comment I've seen re: this was "Obviously, he thought the sign was wearing a hoodie and thus, up to no good."

We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

And also the fact that gay marriage isn't actually legal in NC to begin with; they just want to make it more illegal.

I know. We have to make it doubleplus ungood. Not just for gays but for any kind of couple other than a legally married heterosexual one. That's what kills me. The one silver lining in all this is that if it does pass, there's going to be a lot of surprised rednecks with live-in girlfriends/boyfriends and a whole new mess of legal problems.

[Truean]

Kannapolis PD has said they're investigating, and at bare minimum he could be facing charges for unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.

Looked like a light-gauge gun, probably a .410 with pellet shot based on the size of the holes in the paper. So while it was intended as a snarky asshole prank cause "screw them queers, dude", here's hoping it comes back to bite the dude in the ass hard. Although I'm sure if he does, he'll become a poster-boy for FOX News and the like, screaming how he's being made an example of by "the extremist gay activist lobby".

Best comment I've seen re: this was "Obviously, he thought the sign was wearing a hoodie and thus, up to no good."

We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

And also the fact that gay marriage isn't actually legal in NC to begin with; they just want to make it more illegal.

I know. We have to make it doubleplus ungood. Not just for gays but for any kind of couple other than a legally married heterosexual one. That's what kills me. The one silver lining in all this is that if it does pass, there's going to be a lot of surprised rednecks with live-in girlfriends/boyfriends and a whole new mess of legal problems.

Basically they're amending the State Constitution. Gay marriage is illegal in NC and most other states, but that's not enough it seems. Now it has to be unconstitutional. Not that any judge in NC was ever going to make gay marriage legal, but now if gay marriage is against the constitution, then the judge literally couldn't. Granted, judges are biased things, but making something unconstitutional isn't necessary.

It's unfortunate that judges often ignore the law and are corrupt as all hell by large entities at the expense of the individual. Just had a credit card case where the Credit Card Company screwed up the paperwork massively. We aren't saying defendant doesn't owe something, we're saying prove the amount of damages. Judge lets CC company win on summary judgment without a trial, knowing we can't afford to appeal her. Worse, at the rotary club meeting, judge gives speech about how "young people shouldn't get off on technicalities." O really? I guess only credit card companies should get off on those? Yeah, they can put whatever they want on the court papers...

So while judges often ignore the law, it's rarely in favor of individuals or unpopular political causes. In NC, gay marriage is not a popular political cause. The risk of a judge doing anything about it that'd be good for gays is slim to nil. Thus, the additional hurdle of making it unconstitutional is totally unnecessary, because even if you had one sensible judge, they'd be up on appeal with one who wasn't....

So yeah, they have to make it literally unconstitutional, because "illegal" isn't enough. Super Illegal.... Great.

As for the live in girlfriends/boyfriends. Unless you have a palimony statute, then it honestly won't effect them too terribly much. Unless they've got like a wife and a girlfriend or who knows what else. Domestic violence victims and others will feel it, though no one seems to care.

I love being constitutionally considered a second or third class class citizen.... Hopefully future people will look back on this with shame, if nothing else happens. This is basically the anti integration/pro racist shit that happened in the jim crow/civil rights movement era. People don't like a certain thing and the courts mandate it, so they fight back to preserve their prejudice. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.... What is the equal and opposite reaction to civil rights?

Depending upon which polling company you believe support for the amendment is either up or down.

[EveryZig]

As for the live in girlfriends/boyfriends. Unless you have a palimony statute, then it honestly won't effect them too terribly much. Unless they've got like a wife and a girlfriend or who knows what else. Domestic violence victims and others will feel it, though no one seems to care.

It also does do unmarried couples the same bull that is already done to gay couples. No hospital visitation, legal issues if they have kids, and so on.

Hopefully future people will look back on this with shame, if nothing else happens.

Does it count if I am already doing that?

[RedKing]

My take on this whole thing is that it's a pre-emptive measure. A firewall, if you will, so that if the Federal government ever legally recognizes same-sex marriage, opponents will be able to hide behind a "states' rights" argument to defy the Federal government in states where they've pulled this off.

As far as its' chances....I dunno. It'll be close either way. We're a Southern state with a lot of rural ground, but at the same time we have a long history of being one of the most progressive, educated states in the South. And for all our rural territory, the population is still about 75% urban. But then again, "urban" includes a lot of little towns where the local preacher-man is extolling to his flock to get out there and vote for the amendment to protect their kids from TEH GAY. So in the end....I just dunno.

Before 2010, I'd have said with some confidence that we wouldn't stoop to that level of derpitude here, but then we elected a Republican (Tea Party-dominated, no less) legislature to the state house for the first time in decades. And they've proceeded to wreck our shit bigtime. This amendment is just one more notch in their well-worn and somewhat skeevy legislative bedpost.

[Truean]

As for the live in girlfriends/boyfriends. Unless you have a palimony statute, then it honestly won't effect them too terribly much. Unless they've got like a wife and a girlfriend or who knows what else. Domestic violence victims and others will feel it, though no one seems to care.

It also does do unmarried couples the same bull that is already done to gay couples. No hospital visitation, legal issues if they have kids, and so on.

Hopefully future people will look back on this with shame, if nothing else happens.

Does it count if I am already doing that?

Yes.

Also regardless of this amendment, unmarried couples already have visitation problems, so .... The issue is complicated. People don't understand it. Enforcement is the issue. Technically, right now unmarried couples "Don't" have hospital visitations. Now, do people in hospitals fudge around that, yes. They let them come in all the same. Except of course if you're gay... well then.... Suddenly that gets enforced where as enforcement for straight non married couples.... Now will this amendment do anything to effect enforcement? I dunno.

That said people are monumentally stupid. You have no idea how often I've heard from stupid parents, "I don't need a will, I got that Gerber Grow up Plan for my kids." .... [look of disbelief]. That.... is just a life insurance plan for IF YOUR KID dies. It will pay you to bury your kid. It will do NOTHING if YOU die, ONLY if KID dies.... People refuse to get this and other things. Carlan was right. "Think of how dumb the average person is; half of 'em are dumber than that." People don't understand much about family law. They will vote though....

My take on this whole thing is that it's a pre-emptive measure. A firewall, if you will, so that if the Federal government ever legally recognizes same-sex marriage, opponents will be able to hide behind a "states' rights" argument to defy the Federal government in states where they've pulled this off.

As far as its' chances....I dunno. It'll be close either way. We're a Southern state with a lot of rural ground, but at the same time we have a long history of being one of the most progressive, educated states in the South. And for all our rural territory, the population is still about 75% urban. But then again, "urban" includes a lot of little towns where the local preacher-man is extolling to his flock to get out there and vote for the amendment to protect their kids from TEH GAY. So in the end....I just dunno.

Before 2010, I'd have said with some confidence that we wouldn't stoop to that level of derpitude here, but then we elected a Republican (Tea Party-dominated, no less) legislature to the state house for the first time in decades. And they've proceeded to wreck our shit bigtime. This amendment is just one more notch in their well-worn and somewhat skeevy legislative bedpost.

Not a bad way to look at it. Though, it also is about state level preemption. If it's "unconstitutional," by the state constitution, then no state judge can do jack with a case trying to declare it illegal. So it's double preventative.

[RedKing]

Like I said, doubleplus ungood. Probably right, though. We do have a Superior Court Judge (one Howard Manning Jr.) who has a track record of telling the legislature to go fuck itself when he's determned they're shirking their civil responsibilities.

Like when he overruled a Republican bill to tack a program fee onto a state program for preschool care for families below the poverty line. Or found in favor of a group of families sueing the state board of education, because he determined that the Board wasn't meeting their constitutional responsibility to adequately fund school districts in poor counties.

But then his "activism" (although really all he's done is saying "You set out goals and programs in Document A. You then thought you could just forget about and not actually have to fund it. Guess what? You still have to fund it, or else go back and actually take the step to legislate the program away, and then reap your rewards at the polls.") has been confined narrowly to education, particularly education of low-income children. I don't see that extending to gay marriage, especially when it's already illegal on the books.

[Truean]

Like I said, doubleplus ungood. Probably right, though. We do have a Superior Court Judge (one Howard Manning Jr.) who has a track record of telling the legislature to go fuck itself when he's determned they're shirking their civil responsibilities.

Like when he overruled a Republican bill to tack a program fee onto a state program for preschool care for families below the poverty line. Or found in favor of a group of families sueing the state board of education, because he determined that the Board wasn't meeting their constitutional responsibility to adequately fund school districts in poor counties.

But then his "activism" (although really all he's done is saying "You set out goals and programs in Document A. You then thought you could just forget about and not actually have to fund it. Guess what? You still have to fund it, or else go back and actually take the step to legislate the program away, and then reap your rewards at the polls.") has been confined narrowly to education, particularly education of low-income children. I don't see that extending to gay marriage, especially when it's already illegal on the books.

Yeah, people don't get that politicians write things and then don't do them, or write things they can't do and try to. There are certain things you can't do and screw you if you wanna do them. There are certain things you must do and screw you if you don't wanna do them.

It's called reality and no one wants to face it, ever. They think the universe is a consumer transaction that operates or not based upon their pleasure, literally. As if their approval meant shit at all. You may be in a democracy, but there are preexisting rules to follow in the exercise of that concept of government. Of, course the politicians will tell the public that unicorns shitting puppies and vomiting rainbows of wonderfulness will result if they get elected and people are dumb enough to believe them. "I want X." People in hell want ice water.... It isn't impossible for them to get ice water, but you have to find a way to get it there in reality. It isn't simple and you might not like it. In fact we should come up with a theoretical plan in a thread about transporting icewater to a person in hell.

[RedKing]

Of, course the politicians will tell the public that unicorns shitting puppies and vomiting rainbows of wonderfulness will result if they get elected

I...I think that would make me less likely to vote for someone. That sounds rather messy. 

In fact we should come up with a theoretical plan in a thread about transporting icewater to a person in hell.

If ever there were a user community that could accomplish that task, it would be this one. Forget colonizing Hell, the next challenge is turning it into a posh resort for the Damned.

[Fenrir]

In fact we should come up with a theoretical plan in a thread about transporting icewater to a person in hell.

If ever there were a user community that could accomplish that task, it would be this one. Forget colonizing Hell, the next challenge is turning it into a posh resort for the Damned.

If I took the time to study the matter, there might be a way to do that. I think it might involve transubstantiation and AI.

1. Build AI.
2. Transubstantiate AI into a real person.
3. Ordain AI.
4. Order AI to commit suicide and, once in Hell, transubstantiate synthetic body fluids into icewater.

It is a bit rough and makes some assumptions, but it is a start.

[scriver]

Wait, what exactly does that new law do?

[GlyphGryph]

What new law?

[Jervill]

I need to stop lurking.

The proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment would make both gay marriage and civil unions illegal; most voters are unaware of the latter part of the law.  Someone else could perhaps explain it better.

As an aside, does the North Carolina Governor have any power whatsoever?  I know that both constitutional amendments and legislative redistricting are completely out of the governor's control; so what is the point of the position?

[GlyphGryph]

Of course they are. Hey gets to approve and or dissapprove of laws.

Constitutional amendments are not laws. Or at least not legislative-style laws people mean when they talk about laws.

[RedKing]

I need to stop lurking.

The proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment would make both gay marriage and civil unions illegal; most voters are unaware of the latter part of the law.  Someone else could perhaps explain it better.

As an aside, does the North Carolina Governor have any power whatsoever?  I know that both constitutional amendments and legislative redistricting are completely out of the governor's control; so what is the point of the position?

Governor does have a veto, which she exercised a lot this last session. However the GOP has enough dominance in the General Assembly that they can actually override most of her vetos (62% control of the Senate and 59% of the House..all they need are a relative handful of conservative Democrats -- of which there are plenty -- to do it)

And as GG pointed out, this is a constitutional amendment set as a ballot referendum. Now, I believe it did take a bill to put it on the ballot, and IIRC Gov. Perdue vetoed it, and the GA gleefully overrode the veto.

Should be noted that many of these new Republican legislators ran as Tea party fiscal conservatives and solemnly promised that they were going to Raleigh to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order, not legislate on social issues. And then they promptly slashed social service funding and began legislating on social issues.