Print

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

[RedKing]

They would argue they're not denying them rights. Gay men have the right to get married to a woman just like any other man. 

Found this, which is great for countering any sort of Biblical argument about "God's word that marriage = 1 man + 1 woman".

Spoiler: O RLY? (click to show/hide)

Speaking of which, the next person I hear whining that Christians are politically persecuted in this country gets a big, tall glass of "Shut The Hell Up". 

[GlyphGryph]

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Except part of what made the North so upset was the fact that even if they made slavery illegal, slaves in their states were still slaves if they were slaves to a southerner.

A state can decide whether or not it wants to let two people get married in their state - that's their right. They CANNOT decide a marriage performed in another state is invalid, even if those people are currently in the state that banned it. That is NOT their right, as per the constitution.

[mainiac]

They would argue they're not denying them rights. Gay men have the right to get married to a woman just like any other man. 

Well yeah they'd argue it.  But I have a really hard time seeing how the Supreme Court could uphold such a principle (once the federal government has defined marriage equality as a right) without striking down say... Loving vs. Virginia while they're at it.

[RedKing]

They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.

"Greetings. We're North Carolina and we're telling you, gay citizens of San Francisco, that your marriage is fake. Please respect our rights and rescind your marriage license. Thank you."

They should just include a mandatory provision to forcefully annul gay marriages [In NC territory of course! It's STATE's rights!] being conducted/participated in inside the state, because, fuck it, that's what god wants.

They can't annul the marriage, but they can refuse to recognize any rights accorded by marriage while they're in North Carolina (such as hospital visitation). Of course, this hearkens back to slave states refusing to recognizing a freedman's status, leading to the occasional case where a free black visiting the south was re-enslaved. 


@mainiac: You're not the only one I've seen bringing up Loving v. Virginia in this context. Problem being, NC is not setting any radical precedents here. There's similar anti-SSM amendments in the constitutions of over two dozen states already. Somebody can bring a court challenge, but I don't see anything here that's going to give them a leg up over all the court challenges that have been tried in other states.

[mainiac]

I'm not talking about within the current framework.  I'm talking about a hypothetical future where the federal government has affirmed a right to marriage equality for same sex couples.  Saying that the states have the right to ignore that would be a radical, radical new precedent.  Right now the states are free to do whatever they want to marriage equality because no such right is explicitly defined.  But were such a right to be explicitly defined the federal government clearly has the authority to strike down any state law that strips individual citizens of their rights.

[RedKing]

And you expect Congress to do this when exactly? Before or after they give us all magic ponies that shit rainbows? Cause I don't see any Congressional majority for that in the next 15 years, minimum.

[Sirus]

Probably wanna take discussion of theoretical future super-Congresses to the Progressive thread, as it's unlikely to happen in the upcoming elections (which is what this thread is for, last I checked).

Here's a question for the folks in this thread: what are your local rules regarding independents and party elections? In my state, registered independent or non-partisan voters (like myself) do not get to vote in primaries. On the plus side, I don't get junk mail from a half-dozen presidential nominees either, but I'm wondering what it's like elsewhere.

[RedKing]

I'm an independent (technically, an "Unaffiliated" voter). So yesterday, I had the option of the Dem primary ballot, the Republican primary ballot (which is what I chose), the Libertarian ballot (which had almost no candidates), or the Unaffiliated ballot which only had the supposedly non-partisan judicial races and the marriage amendment question.

Now, about 10 years ago, independents could ONLY have chosen the Unaffiliated ballot. Ever since they opened it up to allow indies to choose their primary ballot, the number of people registering independent/unaffiliated has grown dramatically.

Since I'm not registered with any party, I don't get the political junk mail. My wife is a card-carrying Democrat with a history of organizing and fundraising, so she does. I'll be curious to see if I start getting GOP junk mail. In theory, my vote is secret but I'm not entirely sure that my choice of ballot is.

[mainiac]

And you expect Congress to do this when exactly? Before or after they give us all magic ponies that shit rainbows? Cause I don't see any Congressional majority for that in the next 15 years, minimum.

I expect it to happen a long time before Alabama overturns it's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

[Sirus]

I'm an independent (technically, an "Unaffiliated" voter). So yesterday, I had the option of the Dem primary ballot, the Republican primary ballot (which is what I chose), the Libertarian ballot (which had almost no candidates), or the Unaffiliated ballot which only had the supposedly non-partisan judicial races and the marriage amendment question.

Now, about 10 years ago, independents could ONLY have chosen the Unaffiliated ballot. Ever since they opened it up to allow indies to choose their primary ballot, the number of people registering independent/unaffiliated has grown dramatically.

Since I'm not registered with any party, I don't get the political junk mail. My wife is a card-carrying Democrat with a history of organizing and fundraising, so she does. I'll be curious to see if I start getting GOP junk mail. In theory, my vote is secret but I'm not entirely sure that my choice of ballot is.

That sounds like a better system. At least you get to participate in preliminary stuff without getting the junk mail

[Sheb]

You have to choose between the Republican ballot and the referendum?

[Karlito]

No, I'm pretty sure the whole point of the referendum is that everybody gets to vote in it. The marriage amendment question was on every ballot, it's just that the unaffiliated ballot didn't have any actual candidates. Although the whole idea of having an important ballot initiative on a primary ballot is a little mystifying to me.

As another unaffiliated voter, I also have to say that the lack of junk mail is pretty enjoyable. I did participate in a by-phone PPP poll a few weeks ago, but that's been about it.

[Leafsnail]

It seems like it could bias the vote, considering that as far as I can tell there's basically no competition in the Dem primaries, meaning that the turnout of Republicans would likely be inflated.

[GlyphGryph]

That is why they did it that way, I imagine.

[Sheb]

Another thing I don't get is why don't you people organize elections on sunday and/or holidays. Just makes it much easier for everyone.