North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

If gay people wanted a marriage of convenience, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now. I had such a proposal from a straight person, but there is no reason a gay man and a gay women cannot get married today, if all they want are the legal benefits.

Probably partly due to the lack of benefits. I was just saying I could see a couple straight old drunk guys out in Vegas coming up with this scheme

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Same thing in opposite gender heterosexual marriage. So what's your point? I've seen plenty of crime documentaries where heterosexuals married not just to get benefits at natural death, but to poison their partner and get a huge life insurance payoff. I have yet to see a story about a homosexual married couple doing that.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

If gay people wanted a marriage of convenience, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now. I had such a proposal from a straight person, but there is no reason a gay man and a gay women cannot get married today, if all they want are the legal benefits.

Actually, we are being told to do just that by most heteros.

Loveless marriages in exchange for the mirage of social acceptance.

Faugh!

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
Your post does not change reality.
I have no interest in convincing you of anything.
And yes, you are a bully and everyone knows it.
You are what you claim to hate, which to me, makes you nothing.
But again, please do focus on me, I dont mind you misleading everyone about that, but it bugs me how your ignorance on law spreads...
Did you notice how other people got my logical ANALOGY about LGBT?
And yet you didn't?
This is the truth...I am miles above you.

Did you notice how you used a logical fallacy to make your point? An attorney would NEVER make such an OBVIOUS error. But I must say, the narcissism is a nice touch.

Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

-Pretending to be more important than they really are
-Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
-Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
-Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
-Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
-Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
No, just the opposite. Turner did not guarantee procreation. It allowed denial of procreation. It guaranteed marriage despite the impossibility of procreation. Marriage was affirmed as so fundametal a right, it could not be denied simply because they were locked up in prison. Sex and the possiblity for procreation can be limited by imprisonment, but not the right of marriage.
Baker was before Romer and Lawrence. Both of those said you can't deny equal rights to gay people because you don't like them or think they are ikky. Baker relied on laws that allowed such treatment. Roemer and Lawrence ruled those laws unconstitutional. Of course we'll have to wait till it get back to them, but Gill lays out the reasoning, which has been supported by 6 other decisions so far, with more challenges coming.
I don't get your LGBT/gay thing. Sexual orientation is not a valid basis on which to deny fundamental rights.
A license is a way to collect money as well as have some basic regulations. Age, and ability to demonstrate informed consent, are legitimate governmental concerns invloved with protecting individuals. No other test is required. Only two are allowed. If you want to change that, you must demonstrate why the legitimate governmental interests previously demonstrated through law are not valid. Those reasons are very different from the relationships of two persons. Divisions of property, child custody, interrelationship among the parties involved, is all different. It is a separate argument.
Marriage is a fundamental right. Driving a car is not, though if you qualify, sexual orientation would be an irrational basis on which to deny the license. Sexual orientation is not a requirement.

I notice you drop quotes from cases here all the time, but you have none for what you write here...why is that?

the LGBT thing is simply that your making procreation a "requirement" is false logic. Procreation is no more a requirement of being married as being gay is to be LGBT since straight transgendered people are nonetheless LGBT.

See that? an exception to LGBT being all gay. Does that mean LGBT has NOTHING TO DO with being gay?
SO even though there are straights that are LGBT (so being gay is not REQUIRED to be LGBT) you would be hard pressed to say being LGBT is not LINKED to being gay.

So by your logic on procreation, the fact that LGBT status includes some folks who are straight means there is no reason to deny ALL STRAIGHTS LGBT status, unless you think allowing all straights to be LGBT would dilute what being LGBT is all about...

so LGBT status is a direct analogy.

Beyond the fact that it shows your "logic" that an exception negates the rule isn't logical....it also speaks to many of the rhetorical arguments...for example...adding All straights to LGBT status would not affect any gays right to that same status,...so there is no harm...

you assume Baker is built on the idea gays are icky and you are flat wrong. Baker is built on the 14 marriage cases that all also refer to procreation...
it is not irrational to realize married gays cannot procreate together EVER. That infertile people marry is as much a justifications for gays to be married as straight transgenders being LGBT is justification for all straights to be LGBT.
or is there a goal for LGBT status that straights just don't fit?
see what I mean YET?

Driving a car is a fundamental right (the right to roam). However,driving on STATE roads is not. see what I mean?
You can drive a car out on your land all you want and govt cant say squat (although they try). But gov't can exclude folks they dont want on their roads.

Loving is a fundamental right, getting it recognized on state records is not.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you notice how you used a logical fallacy to make your point? An attorney would NEVER make such an OBVIOUS error. But I must say, the narcissism is a nice touch.
Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
-Pretending to be more important than they really are
-Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
-Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
-Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
-Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
-Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)

yawn. This was boring three days ago..get new material.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? That's insane. In a world with over 4 million orphans and a growing population???

So you quit using the extreme rarity of two people who get married and plan on NOT ever having children as some sort of reasoning that making babies isn't a reason of sanctioning marriage, that's why. BTW, the rest of the world's ills are irrelavent when it comes to U.S. policy and we're not talking about creating orphans, we're talking to children born into wedlock.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)
Let's look at that again. It says a century worth of research. That research is looking at the entire history of civilization. So after looking at the entire worldwide civilization, across time and cultures, for over a hundred years now, that "anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."
While not well known, or admitted, same sex marriage has been accepted at various times and places throughout civilization. Same sex couples have often raised those orphaned by war, disease, accident, etc.
There simply is no scientifically justifiable reason for treating gay people as worth less under the law.

I'm sure that there is an abundance of information on same sex "marriage" prior to the last 20-30 years to draw from for that century's worth of research.....

Indy wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure that there is an abundance of information on same sex "marriage" prior to the last 20-30 years to draw from for that century's worth of research.....

Remember the 100 years of research was research on the entire history of civilization.

Yes, there is. Start with John Boswell, but don't stop there. Go all the way back to ancient Egypt. Of course you will attack Boswell, rather than consider the documentation he provides, but that doesn't change the fact the documents proving his assertions still exist.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
I meant fundamental rights in the strictest sense of the term.
Natural is irrelevant to this discussion.
right to privacy is also irrelevant.
I made no such assertion. You did. We are not talking about the issue of government involvement other than what exists presently.
I am talking about equal protection of the civil law regarding married couples and households.
CUs are unequal and unnecessary. It is the same as racial discrimination practices and discussions.

"natural" is the basis for 'fundamental' in this case.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Isn't that why heterosexual couples get legal marriages also?

Some...most do it to establish a family.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>A married couple is not a family? Humans existence is not threatened by underpopulation. In fact, the opposite is true.

Only in 'your' twisted mind.

Indy wrote:

<quoted text>
So you quit using the extreme rarity of two people who get married and plan on NOT ever having children as some sort of reasoning that making babies isn't a reason of sanctioning marriage, that's why. BTW, the rest of the world's ills are irrelavent when it comes to U.S. policy and we're not talking about creating orphans, we're talking to children born into wedlock.

It is far from rare that two people who can't produce children get married. Women past the age of reproduction get married every day. Most second and third, and fourth marriages include such couples.

When a married lesbian couple has a baby, that child is born into wedlock. Sometimes the egg from one will be carried by the other, so one is the birth mother, and one is the biological mother. You have no excuse for not treating these children equally to others. But adoption is also treated equally, if the parents are straight. There is no reason to treat the adopted children of gay couples any differently. Procreation has never been a requirement to get a marriage license.

Fundamental rights do not depend on how many people use them.

Reality:(too long to quote and add my reply.)

I have provided quotes in the past, but as you might notice, I spilled a lot of ink yesterday, and have other things that need attention. More out of state guests arriving today for a couple weeks. So time is limited.

It is not me who is trying to make procreation a requirement. The point is, it has never been a requirement, so trying to use it now to deny equal rights is irrational. The ability, intent, or even desire to have children is not a requirement for getting a marriage license, and never has been.

Your LGBT thing doesn't stand up. You don't need a license to be LGB or T. LGB are sexual orientations. T is not a sexual orientation, but rather a gender identity. "Gay" is an umbrella term, often used to denote those who are denied equal rights, or it can be more specific. Your rationalization does not suffice for denial of equal rights based on sexual orientation. Straight is also a sexual orientation. And of course, these are the popular slang terms, not the more legal ones like heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Those are the 3 legally accepted terms for sexual orientation.

Not all 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundamental right had been decided when Baker was decided, and again, at the time of Baker, laws punishing gay people were still being recognized. After Baker, Lawrence and Romer said those laws were wrong and can no longer be applied. Baker denied equal protection based on those laws which are now unconstitutional. Because it relied on unconstitutional laws, it therefore no longer stands, and subsequent cases have recognized that.(Though the Supremes haven't had an opportunity to consider that yet, but they will eventually.)

If you want a driver's license, you must meet the qualifications for that license. Procreation ability, intent, desire, is not a requirement of getting the license, and it can't be denied based on sexual orientation or the desire or intent to have children or not. Those aren't requirements for getting the license.

Ability, intent, desire to reproduce are not requirement for a marriage license. You can't be denied on that basis, as it isn't a requirement for the license.

And as the courts have affirmed 14 times, marriage is a fundametal right.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, we are being told to do just that by most heteros.
Loveless marriages in exchange for the mirage of social acceptance.
Faugh!

Ironic isn't it. They tell us they don't want people entering into marriages of convenience yet the only option they want us to have is a marriage of convenience.

Just goes to show, there is no logical, rational, or scientifically justifiable excuse for denial of equal rights.

There has never in history been a more persecuted group of people than Christians and the upper class in today's America. Not the Jews in Nazi Germany, not blacks in pre-1960s America, nothing comes close to how brutalized those groups are in America today. Dan Savage proved that when he brutalized those innocent Christian children at that speech. No gay teenager has ever been subjected to anything close to the treatment that they received. Still, Jesus told us that we would be persecuted for following Him. He said that we would be disagreed with, that we'd be made to accommodate other religions, and that we might even not get our way some of the time. It only makes me feel closer to my Father in heaven when I am persecuted like this.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

It is not me who is trying to make procreation a requirement. The point is, it has never been a requirement, so trying to use it now to deny equal rights is irrational. The ability, intent, or even desire to have children is not a requirement for getting a marriage license, and never has been.

exactly, since its stability we try to provide in the case of ACCIDENTAL birth. So it applies greatest to those without the intent or desire to procreate. In ability is a MINOR exception that does not negate the rule. And encouraging both a mother and father to any child is a legit state objective.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Your LGBT thing doesn't stand up. You don't need a license to be LGB or T. LGB are sexual orientations. T is not a sexual orientation, but rather a gender identity.

LGBT is a status with attending benefits just like marriage.
Do I need to repost that violence against women not doing enough for the LGBT community?
Was that not enough for orientation?
nope.
So our congress is looking at LGBT as its own status, one that is denied to straights based on sexual orientation alone.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Not all 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundamental right had been decided when Baker was decided, and again, at the time of Baker, laws punishing gay people were still being recognized. After Baker, Lawrence and Romer said those laws were wrong and can no longer be applied. Baker denied equal protection based on those laws which are now unconstitutional. Because it relied on unconstitutional laws, it therefore no longer stands, and subsequent cases have recognized that.(Though the Supremes haven't had an opportunity to consider that yet, but they will eventually.)

And as the courts have affirmed 14 times, marriage is a fundametal right.

yet even the 9th circuit recently wouldn't say gay marriage was fundamental right?

In fact they wrote it right out of walker's opinion.
Why do you figure they did that then?

You again assume BAaker was built on antisodomy laws and you are wrong. Child rearing dude. the rest of what you wrote therefore falls.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

If you want a driver's license, you must meet the qualifications for that license.

You must also meet the purposes of the benefit.
You don't get a trucker's license to drive a car.
Wait truckers have their own license? Must be bigotry.

In short, society gets no extra benefit from allowing gays to marry as it would in providing equal CU's.

I don't think you separate is unequal is as good an argument as you do.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Ironic isn't it. They tell us they don't want people entering into marriages of convenience yet the only option they want us to have is a marriage of convenience.
Just goes to show, there is no logical, rational, or scientifically justifiable excuse for denial of equal rights.

Marriages of convenience are still marriages. I don't say anything against that. If that is the type of marriage someone wants, so be it.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Not all 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundamental right had been decided when Baker was decided, and again, at the time of Baker, laws punishing gay people were still being recognized. After Baker, Lawrence and Romer said those laws were wrong and can no longer be applied. Baker denied equal protection based on those laws which are now unconstitutional. Because it relied on unconstitutional laws, it therefore no longer stands, and subsequent cases have recognized that.(Though the Supremes haven't had an opportunity to consider that yet, but they will eventually.)

read today's first circuit decision.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

a detailed discussion rejecting your argument.

" Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
It is far from rare that two people who can't produce children get married. Women past the age of reproduction get married every day. Most second and third, and fourth marriages include such couples.
When a married lesbian couple has a baby, that child is born into wedlock. Sometimes the egg from one will be carried by the other, so one is the birth mother, and one is the biological mother. You have no excuse for not treating these children equally to others. But adoption is also treated equally, if the parents are straight. There is no reason to treat the adopted children of gay couples any differently. Procreation has never been a requirement to get a marriage license.
Fundamental rights do not depend on how many people use them.

State recognition of one's relationship as an institution isn't a fundamental right.