• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First They Came For...

BeachBumDeac said:
Another negative effect of this amendment is that if our government can't offer domestic partnership benefits and private employers can, it puts our state and local governments at a disadvantage when trying to hire talented, creative people.
Click to expand...

This is a big problem IMO. Especially if it prohibits private employers from extending benefits to domestic partners.
 
2 things....

1. got the rare Double Neg Rep from DeacFan2010 in less than 2-3 minutes. I applaud you sir. You worked hard to be able to spread reputation and bring the hammer down twice in less than 5 minutes.

2. The domestic violence angle and the child benefits are pretty strong points however other than the Ohio case (which is now no longer applicable because they have established a new precedence which protects the abused) what kind of other cases are we looking at?

I get the uproar, but I don't see the tangible evidence that all these terrible things have happened. I am not arguing that this has no impact, I believe that it does, just looking for real examples. If these things are really happening then they should be happening right now in Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Idaho, Nebraska, Georgia, etc....

These are strong allegations, I am not arguing against them, just wondering where the true results are if this is going to be the result.
 
Wrangor said:
2 things....

1. got the rare Double Neg Rep from DeacFan2010 in less than 2-3 minutes. I applaud you sir. You worked hard to be able to spread reputation and bring the hammer down twice in less than 5 minutes.

2. The domestic violence angle and the child benefits are pretty strong points however other than the Ohio case (which is now no longer applicable because they have established a new precedence which protects the abused) what kind of other cases are we looking at?

I get the uproar, but I don't see the tangible evidence that all these terrible things have happened. I am not arguing that this has no impact, I believe that it does, just looking for real examples. If these things are really happening then they should be happening right now in Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Idaho, Nebraska, Georgia, etc....

These are strong allegations, I am not arguing against them, just wondering where the true results are if this is going to be the result.
Click to expand...

There won't be other cases because Ohio had (key word: had) the broadest written amendment. NC's is broader.


The amendment should have read something like: the only marriage recognized in this state is between one man and one woman
 
Wrangor said:
2 things....

1. got the rare Double Neg Rep from DeacFan2010 in less than 2-3 minutes. I applaud you sir. You worked hard to be able to spread reputation and bring the hammer down twice in less than 5 minutes.

2. The domestic violence angle and the child benefits are pretty strong points however other than the Ohio case (which is now no longer applicable because they have established a new precedence which protects the abused) what kind of other cases are we looking at?

I get the uproar, but I don't see the tangible evidence that all these terrible things have happened. I am not arguing that this has no impact, I believe that it does, just looking for real examples. If these things are really happening then they should be happening right now in Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Idaho, Nebraska, Georgia, etc....

These are strong allegations, I am not arguing against them, just wondering where the true results are if this is going to be the result.
Click to expand...

Aren't you looking at this the wrong way? Shouldn't there have to be a good reason to amend the constitution in the first place?
 
It seems like your are being willfully ignorant now. As many people have posted, North Carolina's law is much more broad than other states, and so vague that nobody really knows absolutely what the effects will be. It's bad legislation because it seems many people were willing to risk the possibility of these negative effects just to prevent the gays from getting any benefits.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
It seems like your are being willfully ignorant now. As many people have posted, North Carolina's law is much more broad than other states, and so vague that nobody really knows absolutely what the effects will be. It's bad legislation because it seems many people were willing to risk the possibility of these negative effects just to prevent the gays from getting any benefits.
Click to expand...

Of course he is being ignorant. He is a bigot AND a creationist. It can't get much more ignorant than that.
 
legacyfan said:
http://www.ohiopovertylawcenter.org...in-huffington-post-piece-on-same-sex-marriage

Here's an example of things that could go wrong. (Yes, yes... I know I said could.)
Click to expand...

WOW...that is a great article. Only one red herring in the whole thing (the guy who said the homocide rate would go up because of the Amendment). I would encourage anyone on this thread to read that. Very well stated without being too over-reaching. I would hope that not that the Amendment has passed that the Ohio precedence would prevent any of the domestic abuses mishaps to occur. The deed is done, maybe the NC courts can implement it with common sense.

I completely agree with the last quote of that article:

Even some Republicans are acknowledging that attitudes about marriage are in flux. Last week the Republican speaker of the House, Thom Tillis, who voted for the amendment, said it would be repealed within 20 years.

"It’s a generational issue," Tillis has said. “The data shows right now that you are a generation away from that issue."

After hearing the speaker's remarks, Richard Vinroot, a Republican political figure and attorney in Charlotte, said that the potential side effects of the amendment bothered him. "I don't think we should be amending our constitution for something so temporary and in this case so redundant," he said.
 
Just for information....

North Carolina Amendment:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.[59]

Ohio Amendment:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.[41]

Seems to me they are pretty similar. A ruling from Ohio should be pretty easy to argue in court, especially considering the topic is spousal abuse (which I pretty much think everyone outside of Chris Brown is AGAINST).
 
If I am reading it correctly there is a very, very big difference there because it is "marriage" instead of "union" in the NC amendment.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
Aren't you looking at this the wrong way? Shouldn't there have to be a good reason to amend the constitution in the first place?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The constitution should not have been amended. Sorry if I was not clear. But for people who voted FOR or who support it, that is not a valid reasoning point. They will not legitimize that as a claim. Better to show them the consequences of the amendment then tell them to prove their point. I think most of the people who voted FOR were simply saying that they don't like gay marriage. I mean I think that has been restated over and over on the threads. Most people didn't understand, or were willfully ignorant of the ramifications. That is why I appreciate the honest attempts to relay information about the ramifications and not just curse at the people who voted FOR this atrocity of legislation.
 
Wrangor said:
Don't try to convince me that gay marriage is not immoral. Obviously you know that I believe the Bible teaches it to be. I am the best resource you have to be honest if you want Amendments like this to never take place. I am a Bible believing, creationist, who believes that the government should get out of the marriage business. You don't have a more effective weapon in your arsenal. So give me some real results of this amendment passing so that when I get into conversations about why this was bad legislation I can properly inform them. Calling me a bigot might make you feel warm and fuzzy all over, but it does nothing to turn the political tide against people having their healthcare options limited because of bad legislation.
Click to expand...

Read 27's article, please.
 
Wrangor said:
I agree with you. The constitution should not have been amended. Sorry if I was not clear. But for people who voted FOR or who support it, that is not a valid reasoning point. They will not legitimize that as a claim. Better to show them the consequences of the amendment then tell them to prove their point. I think most of the people who voted FOR were simply saying that they don't like gay marriage. I mean I think that has been restated over and over on the threads. Most people didn't understand, or were willfully ignorant of the ramifications. That is why I appreciate the honest attempts to relay information about the ramifications and not just curse at the people who voted FOR this atrocity of legislation.
Click to expand...

I'm not attempting to be contentious with you, but with the disparity in the vote "showing people the other ramifications" likely wouldn't have been sufficient anyway.

I agree with the lawyer you quoted in your other post. The absurd thing was, this wasn't even a vote FOR gay marriage. The legislation was entirely redundant, and, fortunately, is going to be entirely irrelevant in the coming years once this gets taken care of on a federal level. This was simply a chance for people to reiterate their stance against gay couples.
 
legacyfan said:
When a government starts limiting the rights of it's citizens it doesn't start with the majority. You go after the fringe first, the ones you can get... oh say 60% of the population to get behind on limiting their rights. Once you marginalize enough of the fringe groups you then start dividing the majority along other lines. This is why they say that when freedom falls it will not be fought with bullets, but met with cheers. (Did you see some of the footage of the "victors"?)
Click to expand...

Perhaps we know a little now how the "1%" feel who are constantly demonized for "not paying their fair share". If government can ram one thing down your throat, it can ram another thing down there.
 
Wrangor, if you are talking to people who support banning gay marriage, frame it as a separation of church and state. Ask them if they would support the government restricting marriage rights to atheists, or people who worshipped another God (ie, breaking the FIRST commandment). If they say no, ask them why homosexuality should be the one sin that is singled out and restricted.
 
legacyfan said:
http://www.ohiopovertylawcenter.org...in-huffington-post-piece-on-same-sex-marriage

Here's an example of things that could go wrong. (Yes, yes... I know I said could.)
Click to expand...

"But in 2010, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled against a second parent adoption in families headed by a same-sex couple, making an adoption far more difficult."

Wait, so the non-biological parent of a child in a same sex relationship can't even adopt the child? That's terrible.

I also love this:

"Even Sen. Soucek, the North Carolina bill's sponsor, acknowledged this possibility. "There is some question in the courts as to how that will all work out," he replied when asked if unwed domestic violence victims might go unprotected. Soucek told The Huffington Post he would personally "lead the charge if there's unintentional harm."

I will sponsor a bill without ensuring that it has built in language to prevent unintentional harm, but I will lead the charge if there is some!
 
Last edited:
legacyfan said:
Wrangor, I know that you and I just can't see eye to eye on this subject.

1) How did it limit rights?
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State...

Common law partnetships no longer recognized. (They were before, now they are not... limiting rights.) I am not smart enough to understand all of the legal ramifications, but I did read some things from when Ohio passed this law that made my hair stand on end with regards to domestic abuse and so forth.

2) By making this a constitutional amendment, you are truly marginalizing a population in the highest law of the state. How is that not limiting rights? (Also you did away with even giving the chance for civil unions - again, limiting rights.)
Click to expand...

I am 1000000% opposed to the amendment, but the Ohio Supreme Court overturned the domestic violence issue and common law marriages were not recognized in NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top