If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   North Carolina to gays: Equal rights - not yours   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 1189
    More: Asinine, North Carolina, same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, cohabitations, LGBT rights, civil unions  
•       •       •

11101 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2012 at 10:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 11:39:58 AM

praymantis: Theaetetus: praymantis: Could not agree more.

Welcome back. Ever going to respond to my answer to your question?

Thanks, what was the question? You have to many posts to look through.


praymantis: OK so answer my question why is the government involved in this?

 
2012-05-09 11:40:34 AM

praymantis: Theaetetus: praymantis: Could not agree more.

Welcome back. Ever going to respond to my answer to your question?

Oh respond to your answer: In my job I have enough condescending D Bag lawyers from New England to deal with so probably not.


Oh, then if you're going to ask questions and not respond when answered, you're a waste of time. I'll just ignore you, then.
 
2012-05-09 11:52:31 AM
thurstonxhowell Smartest
Funniest
2012-05-09 10:09:52 AM


doubled99: thurstonxhowell Smartest
Funniest
2012-05-09 09:17:58 AM


doubled99: The entire modern concept of "marriage" should be nullified. If you want to spend your life with someone, go do it. There is no need for the law to be involved. There should be no benefits given that singles don't have.

So should I be able to get on the federal employee health insurance plan because my girlfriend is a federal employee or should my sister not be able to get insurance at all because she's a stay at home mom?



Neither

My sister only has health insurance because she's married to someone who does. The only thing stopping me from signing up for the fed plan is that I would have to marry my GF first. How do you propose that she get that insurance without opening the fed health plan to me without the legal concept of marriage?




I don't know how she would. Nor do I have to provide a solution for her. I'm single, and no one cares if I don't have insurance. All people are created equal, right? If you get benefits from some bs pact to stay with another person forever and I don't, then I am being discriminated against.
 
2012-05-09 11:54:52 AM

Cythraul: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: For shame, NC. You should be embarrassed of yourselves. There's no reason to deny other human beings basic rights. Something is farked up in America.

Don't blame me! I voted against it.



Me too.

30 states have such an amendment; thus a government imposes a religion upon all people.
The theocracy begins.
 
2012-05-09 11:57:37 AM

Theaetetus: praymantis: Theaetetus: praymantis: Could not agree more.

Welcome back. Ever going to respond to my answer to your question?

Oh respond to your answer: In my job I have enough condescending D Bag lawyers from New England to deal with so probably not.

Oh, then if you're going to ask questions and not respond when answered, you're a waste of time. I'll just ignore you, then.


Oh no one less lawyer to talk too. What will I ever do? Go back to your useless trade.
 
2012-05-09 12:16:36 PM
s16.postimage.org
 
2012-05-09 12:19:14 PM

Lorelle: CaptainCliche: Welcome to the club.

Sincerely,
California

Yup. :(

America...the land of the free...MY ASS.

/pissed


That's your yardstick for freedom, eh? As long as gays can marry, it's all good? Riiiight.

Worry about something important, tardnuts, like the country going bankrupt.
 
2012-05-09 12:26:49 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this law changed anything?

North Carolina still doesn't allow same sex marriages.
They will still have to recognize marriages from out of state.
 
2012-05-09 12:29:10 PM

seadoo2006: "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults," she said.


Why is this woman allowed to speak in public? Her husband is the only one allowed to speak. God's design demands her silence and subjection!!

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

i651.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-09 12:35:08 PM
You do not have a constitutional right to engage in abominations.
 
2012-05-09 12:37:28 PM

Publikwerks: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this law changed anything?


That's not a question, therefore the question mark is inappropriate.

It would be great if there was some way to find the information you seek. Maybe someone will create such a service, someday.
 
2012-05-09 12:37:36 PM

Publikwerks: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this law changed anything?

North Carolina still doesn't allow same sex marriages.
They will still have to recognize marriages from out of state.


Their law says they don't have to. Is that law blatantly unconstitutional? Well, yes, yes it is. However, I have a medical condition that has left me in an ER, unable to speak, barely conscious, while my lawfully wedded wife explained my condition to people who thought it was something else, and who would've given me drugs that probably would not have killed me, but certainly would have been unpleasant for me to experience.

North Carolina says it's okay for them to ignore my legal marriage, because it isn't on their approved list of marriages. How in the hell would I be safe in a hospital in North Carolina when my wife would not be allowed to speak for me if she needed to, as she has before?

I would get to be the experiment in which law the hospital chose to abide by. That makes me feel so safe.
 
2012-05-09 12:39:12 PM

tony41454: You do not have a constitutional right to engage in abominations.


Like work on Saturday (or was it Sunday?), talk back to your parents, eat shellfish, look at porn or cut your hair?
 
2012-05-09 12:40:18 PM

tony41454: You do not have a constitutional right to engage in abominations.


filmcrithulk.files.wordpress.com
He needs love too.
 
2012-05-09 12:40:58 PM

LabGrrl: They will still have to recognize marriages from out of state.

Their law says they don't have to. Is that law blatantly unconstitutional? Well, yes, yes it is.


Well, not really, under DoMA's clause 2, which prescribes the effect of the full faith & credit clause regarding same-sex marriage, which arguably is constitutional.
 
2012-05-09 12:41:28 PM

Cythraul: Well, it's late for me, and I usually only Fark during the morning / early afternoon.

I think I might go back to my Skyrim:

WHERE I CAN GET MARRIED AS A MAN, TO ANOTHER MAN!


High five. I gay married Balimund the Riften Blacksmith. We are very happy, and hes always giving me septims. Seriously, fark this law.
 
2012-05-09 12:42:02 PM
Also I would not have the right to see my wife in prison after she killed the person who refused to listen to her in the hospital. So there is that.
 
2012-05-09 12:45:11 PM
"So you could be as a gay married couple living in one State with all of the rights that apply, move to another and find yourself now without those rights because the State you just moved to doesn't recognize your marriage."

www.twoevilmonks.org

"Does that seem right to you"
 
2012-05-09 12:46:01 PM

LabGrrl: Publikwerks: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this law changed anything?

North Carolina still doesn't allow same sex marriages.
They will still have to recognize marriages from out of state.

Their law says they don't have to. Is that law blatantly unconstitutional? Well, yes, yes it is.


That's my point. You can't choose to violate the US Constitution, even with a state constitutional amendment.
 
2012-05-09 12:48:07 PM
Why are there so few vocal libtards that assume marriage is a right? It's not, and the majority of Americans keep proving you wrong. Suck it and suck it hard.
 
2012-05-09 12:49:17 PM

BigBooper: quatchi: If the story you read wasn't totally made up there's a good chance a heavy Valium scrip was involved in her presto chango conversion.

Why do so many people seem to think that sexual orientation is binary? Many people can swing both ways. Think of it as scale of one to ten. With one being straight, and ten being absolutely gay.
It would be interesting to see a study that showed the true distribution of the population on that scale. Of course since there's no way to measure someones true natural orientation without religious and societal influences, we probably won't ever get a good measurement.

Still, I'm going to bet that many anti-gay crusaders would end up much higher on that scale than they would admit.


The Kinsey Scale is actually 1-7, not 1-10.
 
2012-05-09 12:49:24 PM

Theaetetus: LabGrrl: They will still have to recognize marriages from out of state.

Their law says they don't have to. Is that law blatantly unconstitutional? Well, yes, yes it is.

Well, not really, under DoMA's clause 2, which prescribes the effect of the full faith & credit clause regarding same-sex marriage, which arguably is constitutional.


That's sort of the bigger metaproblem, in that now we get to have two sets of incompatible laws...so what you end up with is the hospital, or any other organization, having to basically decide what to do based on their own lack of information or their own prejudices. It makes North Carolina a pretty unsafe place to be for rights, and it's so stupidly worded that I'm still not convinced that, for example, the wedding ceremony my aunt and uncle got from The Ethical Society counts as a "marriage" for them, so it's not even a gay thing. (Except if auntie and uncle were in the hospital, they'd probably count the marriage as a marriage without requiring a document.)

I'd like to think that most people with enough education to work in a hospital would just do the right thing because it was right, but I'm not going to North Carolina any time soon, and my giant family has now ruled it out for next year's reunion because some of us won't be safe there.
 
2012-05-09 12:49:58 PM

Ball Sack Obama: PunGent: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

So, you're lying in your profile when you pretend to be libertarian.

Where did I lie? I took a quiz. I don't remember any questions at all about gay marriage. I AM for legalizing pot though, if that makes you feel any better.


Then you didn't lie, you took a crappy quiz.

A libertarian stance indicates you should be in favor of fewer restrictions by the state on individuals...ie, letting gays marry each other.

With you on the pot issue, though.
 
2012-05-09 12:51:24 PM

Theaetetus: Well, not really, under DoMA's clause 2, which prescribes the effect of the full faith & credit clause regarding same-sex marriage, which arguably is constitutional.


So, nothing has changed. If DOMA is ruled constitutional, then you can ignore marriages form other states. If it is not, then you can't.
The NC amendment does nothing to change either.
 
2012-05-09 12:51:29 PM

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage racial equality, here is my advice to the gay Black community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades marches.


i651.photobucket.com

Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude Holding sit-ins and confronting authority figures isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks.


i651.photobucket.com

And that over the top feminine uppity shiat is just annoying.

i651.photobucket.com

And yes, I do realize that not every gay Black person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay Black folks out there.


i651.photobucket.com

Apologist for the win!
 
2012-05-09 12:53:16 PM

LabGrrl: I'm still not convinced that, for example, the wedding ceremony my aunt and uncle got from The Ethical Society counts as a "marriage" for them, so it's not even a gay thing


... they may want to check that. Not so much for hospital visitation rights, but for inheritance, pensions, social security, etc. My wife's parents were wed-but-not-married for something like 20 years before they realized the error and fixed it (forgot to send in the signed marriage license). Fortunately, they did so before he got lung cancer.

Weddings do not give rise to legal rights, other than possible (and very, very limited) de-facto marriage rights - pretty much just a limited right to support, in cases where one putative spouse defrauded the other regarding the existence of the marriage.
 
2012-05-09 12:53:31 PM
I live in North Carolina. I voted against Amendment 1. Bigotry and ignorance sadly won out. I am embarassed to live here.
 
2012-05-09 12:55:50 PM
I should add that, having worked in a hospital, I feel very sorry for the people in North Carolina who will end up in that position of choosing which set of laws to respect when push comes to shove. That's crazytown time.
 
2012-05-09 12:56:09 PM
Now, in North Carolina, you can still marry your cousin, as long as you aren't gay.
 
2012-05-09 12:56:34 PM

Publikwerks: Theaetetus: Well, not really, under DoMA's clause 2, which prescribes the effect of the full faith & credit clause regarding same-sex marriage, which arguably is constitutional.

So, nothing has changed. If DOMA is ruled constitutional, then you can ignore marriages form other states. If it is not, then you can't.
The NC amendment does nothing to change either.


Nope, stuff has changed. Here's the amendment:
Sec. 6. Marriage.

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.


Note that bit about "only domestic legal union that shall be... recognized"? That means that domestic violence statutes may not apply to unmarried cohabitants in North Carolina anymore.

Interestingly, it just occurred to me that this could actually end up costing North Carolina federal money under the VAWA, but I haven't looked too deeply into that yet.
 
2012-05-09 12:56:57 PM

Mearen: Why are there so few vocal libtards that assume marriage is a right? It's not, and the majority of Americans keep proving you wrong. Suck it and suck it hard.


Nothing to assume: marriage IS a right, thanks to
Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Your ignorant opinion: 0
Established case law: 1
 
2012-05-09 01:00:46 PM

Theaetetus: LabGrrl: I'm still not convinced that, for example, the wedding ceremony my aunt and uncle got from The Ethical Society counts as a "marriage" for them, so it's not even a gay thing

... they may want to check that. Not so much for hospital visitation rights, but for inheritance, pensions, social security, etc. My wife's parents were wed-but-not-married for something like 20 years before they realized the error and fixed it (forgot to send in the signed marriage license). Fortunately, they did so before he got lung cancer.

Weddings do not give rise to legal rights, other than possible (and very, very limited) de-facto marriage rights - pretty much just a limited right to support, in cases where one putative spouse defrauded the other regarding the existence of the marriage.


New York State recognizes the Ethical Society's rites (I'm not even sure rite is the right term) as marriage, and issued them a marriage certificate, but the ceremony never said marriage, in fact, their ceremony said everything but marriage. Both auntie and uncle, and my wife and I, have certificates of marriage, not civil unions or whatever, but this North Carolina thing is SO pants-on-head that I'm not certain either would count, mine because even though it is called a marriage it doesn't meet their idea of marriage, and theirs because the only document calling it a marriage is the same document that they'd ignore on my behalf.
 
2012-05-09 01:02:24 PM
Theaetetus
Interestingly, it just occurred to me that this could actually end up costing North Carolina federal money under the VAWA, but I haven't looked too deeply into that yet.


We all breathlessly await your findings on the issue. Update us in a week or two!
 
2012-05-09 01:08:17 PM

The_Great_Hambino: I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that the majority votes down equal rights for minorities.

I wonder if people 30+ years from now will look at the gay marriage "debate" as we now look at the Civil Rights Movement. I also wonder if the issue of interracial marriage was on the ballot today what percentage of the public would outlaw it. (My guess: 25-30% on average, higher in the South.)


No.
 
2012-05-09 01:20:02 PM

Theaetetus: Publikwerks: Theaetetus: Well, not really, under DoMA's clause 2, which prescribes the effect of the full faith & credit clause regarding same-sex marriage, which arguably is constitutional.

So, nothing has changed. If DOMA is ruled constitutional, then you can ignore marriages form other states. If it is not, then you can't.
The NC amendment does nothing to change either.

Nope, stuff has changed. Here's the amendment:
Sec. 6. Marriage.

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.

Note that bit about "only domestic legal union that shall be... recognized"? That means that domestic violence statutes may not apply to unmarried cohabitants in North Carolina anymore.

Interestingly, it just occurred to me that this could actually end up costing North Carolina federal money under the VAWA, but I haven't looked too deeply into that yet.



Oh, I'm not even touching the unintended side effects of this stupid law. I'm wondering what they hoped to accomplish.
I mean, either DOMA is upheld and they don't have to recognize marriage, or it doesn't and the US Constitution trumps their state Constitution.

Either way, this accomplishes nothing.
 
2012-05-09 01:25:34 PM

jaylectricity: This is why my girlfriend and I will never get married. It obviously doesn't mean anything, and there are people that want to get married can't. So what's the point?

It's more exciting this way, anyway.


I'm straight and I'll never get married. I shouldn't have to apply for a license to validate my relationship.
 
2012-05-09 01:25:50 PM

praymantis: hugram: hbk72777: But it's hilarious to see the gay's and gay supporters throwing out insults when they don't get their way.

Same as the Republican Senate throwing a fit and filibustering everything since 2009 because they did not get their way...

Yes no Democrat Senator has ever done this just Republicans? That is politics.


No were near the level of the current Republican Senate...
talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2012-05-09 01:26:42 PM

LabGrrl: Theaetetus: LabGrrl: I'm still not convinced that, for example, the wedding ceremony my aunt and uncle got from The Ethical Society counts as a "marriage" for them, so it's not even a gay thing

... they may want to check that. Not so much for hospital visitation rights, but for inheritance, pensions, social security, etc. My wife's parents were wed-but-not-married for something like 20 years before they realized the error and fixed it (forgot to send in the signed marriage license). Fortunately, they did so before he got lung cancer.

Weddings do not give rise to legal rights, other than possible (and very, very limited) de-facto marriage rights - pretty much just a limited right to support, in cases where one putative spouse defrauded the other regarding the existence of the marriage.

New York State recognizes the Ethical Society's rites (I'm not even sure rite is the right term) as marriage, and issued them a marriage certificate, but the ceremony never said marriage, in fact, their ceremony said everything but marriage.


Ah. It doesn't work that way. New York State issues a marriage certificate regardless of ceremony or rites. No rites are required at all, nor are any recognized.

Both auntie and uncle, and my wife and I, have certificates of marriage, not civil unions or whatever, but this North Carolina thing is SO pants-on-head that I'm not certain either would count, mine because even though it is called a marriage it doesn't meet their idea of marriage, and theirs because the only document calling it a marriage is the same document that they'd ignore on my behalf.

Yours wouldn't count, but your auntie and uncle's would, because the full faith & credit clause requires NC to recognize theirs, but not yours, because they're of different biological sexes.
 
2012-05-09 01:28:45 PM

salvador.hardin: Once again, this wasn't about equal rights. There was no up side for LGBT individuals here. This was about hate misinformation and using the government to hurt people you don't like.


filmfodder.files.wordpress.com

Hotlinked to a farked up amusing story about how we're apparently living in an X-Men comic now.
 
2012-05-09 01:30:51 PM

Publikwerks: I'm wondering what they hoped to accomplish.
I mean, either DOMA is upheld and they don't have to recognize marriage, or it doesn't and the US Constitution trumps their state Constitution.


Ah - I can help there. They figure that if their state constitution abolishes gay marriage, then a state court cannot find the denial of gay marriage to be against the state constitution (as in Hawaii in the late 1990s, and in Massachusetts under Goodridge v. DPH). Instead, any legalization of gay marriage would require a second amendment via the people, or a federal court decision.
 
2012-05-09 01:31:20 PM

Theaetetus:
Yours wouldn't count, but your auntie and uncle's would, because the full faith & credit clause requires NC to recognize theirs, but not yours, because they're of different biological sexes.


Except Auntie and Uncle would never call it a marriage, and on their hospital admittance form, under relationship, would put domestic partner...again, putting the hospital in the position of having to pick which set of laws to follow.
 
2012-05-09 01:37:50 PM

doubled99: I don't know how she would. Nor do I have to provide a solution for her. I'm single, and no one cares if I don't have insurance. All people are created equal, right? If you get benefits from some bs pact to stay with another person forever and I don't, then I am being discriminated against.


So your opinion is that stay at home moms shouldn't have health insurance?
 
2012-05-09 01:38:11 PM
I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?
 
2012-05-09 01:38:34 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-05-09 01:39:31 PM
doubled99: The entire modern concept of "marriage" should be nullified. If you want to spend your life with someone, go do it. There is no need for the law to be involved. There should be no benefits given that singles don't have.

So should I be able to get on the federal employee health insurance plan because my girlfriend is a federal employee or should my sister not be able to get insurance at all because she's a stay at home mom?



Neither

My sister only has health insurance because she's married to someone who does. The only thing stopping me from signing up for the fed plan is that I would have to marry my GF first. How do you propose that she get that insurance without opening the fed health plan to me without the legal concept of marriage?



I don't know how she would. Nor do I have to provide a solution for her. I'm single, and no one cares if I don't have insurance. All people are created equal, right? If you get benefits from some bs pact to stay with another person forever and I don't, then I am being discriminated against.



I have always wondered why we cannot assign our benefits to any-damn-body we please. I have four dependents, but for my health insurance the rate is the same for five people. If I am paying for it, why can't I add that fifth person of my choosing?

Also, North Carolina: Y'all are backwards inbreds. I know, I am from Texas--but I am trying hard to redeem my state by NOT being a backwards inbred. Not all of us down here are intolerant assholes.
 
2012-05-09 01:45:22 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?


I honestly think this is worded so poorly that someone could argue in court (maybe even successfully) that it outlaws second marriages and any marriage between people who already have kids.

It's amazingly dumb. Astonishingly dumb. That's why it's so different from referenda in California or Maine, it's not merely saying that they aren't going to recognize the marriages in other states, they are saying they refuse to recognize them unless they use their terms and their definition.
 
2012-05-09 01:45:29 PM

LabGrrl: Theaetetus:
Yours wouldn't count, but your auntie and uncle's would, because the full faith & credit clause requires NC to recognize theirs, but not yours, because they're of different biological sexes.

Except Auntie and Uncle would never call it a marriage, and on their hospital admittance form, under relationship, would put domestic partner...again, putting the hospital in the position of having to pick which set of laws to follow.


Ah, gotcha.
 
2012-05-09 01:47:11 PM

Theaetetus: Publikwerks: I'm wondering what they hoped to accomplish.
I mean, either DOMA is upheld and they don't have to recognize marriage, or it doesn't and the US Constitution trumps their state Constitution.

Ah - I can help there. They figure that if their state constitution abolishes gay marriage, then a state court cannot find the denial of gay marriage to be against the state constitution (as in Hawaii in the late 1990s, and in Massachusetts under Goodridge v. DPH). Instead, any legalization of gay marriage would require a second amendment via the people, or a federal court decision.


Ahh, seems like a lot of work for something the federal courts are going to decide anyway.
 
2012-05-09 01:47:52 PM

LabGrrl: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?

I honestly think this is worded so poorly that someone could argue in court (maybe even successfully) that it outlaws second marriages and any marriage between people who already have kids.


I don't see that at all:
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.

There's nothing there that would outlaw second marriages or marriages with kids. Sorry, that reading just isn't supported.
 
2012-05-09 01:52:48 PM
As a southerner this shiat is terribly embarrassing. I will say this: most of my friends and others my age (43) and younger support the right to marry whomever you want to marry.
You're witnessing the death throes of a desperate and dwindling group and one day in the relatively near future you will see these things overturned, unless SCOTUS doesn't do it first. I know that doesn't help in the present.
 
Displayed 50 of 1189 comments

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report