# North Carolina passes hateful Amendment 1 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 9, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351 "2012-05-09T02:33:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/201 "2012-05-09T22:31:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So religion is not a suspect class then? That’s right. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/202 "2012-05-09T22:48:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Exactly. Gays have the right to marry each other, and they do, in every state of the union. The laws are not there to stop them from doing that and cannot stop them from doing that. It’s called “freedom of association”. > > Having your marriage recognized by the state is not a right. This is the silliest thing that has been posted in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![WolfpackJeep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpackjeep/32/2921_2.png) [@WolfpackJeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WolfpackJeep)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/203 "2012-05-09T23:05:04Z")
> [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > North Carolina barbecue is, as I understand it, pork. Yep, it is (eastern and western!). One Friday, the ladies at my workplace decided to go out to lunch at the local barbecue shack to celebrate a birthday. I was the only one at the table who ordered barbecue; with the exception of two ladies who ordered fried chicken gizzards, everyone else at the table got fried shrimp or fried fish. (The barbecue at this place is excellent, by the way.) And heck, if these people are supposedly so concerned about marriage, why aren’t they trying to make divorce illegal? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/204 "2012-05-09T23:10:35Z")
> [@WolfpackJeep](#): > > And heck, if these people are supposedly so concerned about marriage, why aren’t they trying to make divorce illegal? Because that’s something that might actually inconvenience THEM… ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/205 "2012-05-09T23:16:32Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Clever argument, but it fails. If it is not possible to determine whether any particular individual is in a suspect class, then it is not possible to determine whether any individuals at all are in such class. The whole idea of having g the suspect class analysis is that people shouldn’t be harmed based on characteristics they cant control. If we define a class in such a way that we don’t know whether there are any people in the class, then we don’t know whether we have a reason to define a class kn the first place. If there’s no burdened class, what does the amendment do? If there’s a group of people affected by the amendment, how is there not a class defined for us already, regardless of whether “we have a reason” to define it? In other words, why should anyone care whether an individual can hop in and out of the class, when by definition people are only burdened to the extent of their membership in the class? You’re not exactly correct about the whole idea of suspect class analysis, incidentally. Discrete & insular minorities and immutable traits are only part of the picture. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/206 "2012-05-09T23:36:37Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I also agree with Ayn Rand on this. And if the law prohibited gays living with each other, or marrying each other, I would have a huge problem with it. But the law only relates to gay marriages being recognized by the state. Having your marriage recognized by the state is not a right. So Ayn Rand’s quote does not apply. Except that North Carolina state law prohibits the conduct of ‘marriage ceremonies’ which purport to create ‘marriages’ not permitted under state law. So perhaps you do indeed have a large problem with the NC law? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/207 "2012-05-09T23:44:36Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I think he’s saying they’re wearing cotton polyester blends, if you catch my [drift](http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html) The only fabric mixture forbidden by the Bible is wool and linen. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/208 "2012-05-09T23:47:23Z")
I made a status about this on Facebook and currently have someone on it who is arguing why it’s a bad idea (as in, he’s a huge bigot). I have a few people arguing against him, but it’s not getting through. WHY I’m friends with this person myself, I don’t know. I never knew he had these views before. I guess I’m only keeping him around now in the hopes that he’s torn a new asshole by others on my friends list. So far that status is up to 130 replies. If anyone would like to add me on FB, send me a PM and I’ll link you. : p ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/209 "2012-05-10T00:21:13Z")
Many of you already know that I’m gay, but I’ll say it again here. It pains me to say this, but I believe Terr may be onto something with his arguments. In Loving v Virginia, the parties involved were arrested and charged with a crime. It wasn’t just that Virginia didn’t RECOGNIZE interracial marriages from other states (or ceremonies performed in their own state), but that it was actually illegal to have it done at all and be in Virginia. Right now I could go get married to my boyfriend in another state, or another country, or even here in Texas, and go around flaunting my certificate and shouting it that I had gotten “gay married” somewhere. Am I going to be thrown in prison? No. I am definitely not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but I think Terr might be at least somewhat correct. Perhaps Bricker or Rand Rover could correct my misunderstandings, but as I see it, the current laws banning gay marriage and gay civil unions are not on the same level as anti-miscegenation laws. Those laws actually resulted in prosecution for violating them, whereas the anti-gay laws of today only prevent state-level recognition of gay marriage and civil unions. I certainly hope I’m wrong. Also, to keep on topic, North Carolina… 60% of you guys who voted suck. But I won’t let a mostly republican turn-out skew my opinion of the state overall. I have learned that moving from Oregon to Texas, you can’t just paint an entire state with a broad brush. There are plenty of good people living everywhere, including the most homophobic states. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/210 "2012-05-10T00:24:34Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I made a status about this on Facebook and currently have someone on it who is arguing why it’s a bad idea (as in, he’s a huge bigot). I have a few people arguing against him, but it’s not getting through. My Facebook diatribe: ``` If you're religious, that's fine. But if you're religious and you hear God telling you to discriminate against gay people, then you're insane. And I'm not speaking figuratively, I mean you're not right in the head, like Son of Sam crazy. Okay, granted, what the dog told Son of Sam to do was worse. But at least I can imagine a dog not liking the neighbors. You? You think an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being wants you to persecute people for who they love. That’s way crazier than believing in a mean talking dog. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/211 "2012-05-10T00:44:25Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I am gay. Prove me wrong. That 's trivially easy. Proving you not-gaty might be harder. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/212 "2012-05-10T00:49:02Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > In Loving v Virginia, the parties involved were arrested and charged with a crime. It wasn’t just that Virginia didn’t RECOGNIZE interracial marriages from other states (or ceremonies performed in their own state), but that it was actually illegal to have it done at all and be in Virginia. If you look at the decision, though, the court didn’t hold that the distinction between illegal vs. non-recognized was relevant. The court held that > [@](#): > > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. There’s nothing to indicate that it matters where you got married. The marriage is a freedom the individual enjoys wherever he or she is. The court’s focus is on the discrimination, and the discrimination exists in the different treatment afforded to marriage A vs. marriage B based on nothing but the parties’ race. The “broader organic purpose” of the 14th Amendment is to eliminate invidious racial discrimination, and that discrimination exists where a white-white marriage is treated differently from a white-black one. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/213 "2012-05-10T01:56:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I don’t disagree with either necessarily. The problem is there’s no way to get beyond the claim to the realness of sexual orientation, whereas there are ways to fer to the "realness " (such as it is) of race and gender. The law doesn’t say anything about being gay, it forbids men from marrying any other man, straight or gay doesn’t enter into it. There is no need to prove or define sexual orientation because the question doesn’t, ah, arise. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/214 "2012-05-10T02:26:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I don’t disagree with either necessarily. The problem is there’s no way to get beyond the claim to the realness of sexual orientation, whereas there are ways to fer to the "realness " (such as it is) of race and gender. Why would we need to get to the “realness of sexual orientation”? Given that sexual orientation is about desires, and that people need protection only inasmuch as either they’re trying to fulfill those desires or others are acting on their perceived desires, this is a distinction without a difference. A person who commits racial discrimination against someone who’s black may not defend himself by saying, “It turns out the dude is actually Native American, and I don’t have a problem with Native Americans.” The putative reality of race is immaterial in discrimination cases. And a law that forbids animal sacrifices may not defend itself by saying, “Who can really say whether Santeria is a real religion?” because religion exists only in people’s heads, much the same as sexual orientation. Whatever “realness” these conditions have is immaterial to equal protection arguments. It’s something that, as near as I can tell, you’ve invented to try to create a distinction between race and sexual orientation. But it’s irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/215 "2012-05-10T02:33:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > That’s right. Well you are wrong. [100% provably wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification#Suspect_class). You may disagree with the notion but religion (among other things) is defined as a suspect class by the SCOTUS. I have zero problem with you trying to make a case why that is wrongheaded but it is the reality. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/216 "2012-05-10T02:42:21Z")
LHOD, you know absolutely nothing about how equal protection analysis works. You are embarrassing yourself. Please hire a lawyer to help you in this thread (you’ll have to look for someone besides Bricker, it looks like he’s given up). > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Why would we need to get to the “realness of sexual orientation”? Given that sexual orientation is about desires, and that people need protection only inasmuch as either they’re trying to fulfill those desires or others are acting on their perceived desires, this is a distinction without a difference. The whole point of the equal protection clause is that the government cannot deny a person the equal protection of the law. If a law separates people into different classes, and those classes are suspect classes, the law is judged under a standard of review called “strict scrutiny,” which means the law can stand only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. If a law separates people into different classes and those classes are not suspect classes, the law is judged under a rational basis standard, which just asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (and almost all laws are). So, if you want to strike down anti-gay marriage laws on equal protection grounds, you need to show that gay people are a suspect class. To do that, you need to first show that there exists a class of people called gay people in the first place. The defining feature of a class of people is that one can determine the members of it. Hell, that might be the defining feature of a class of anything–it’s just part of the concept of a class. If there’s no way to determine if a person is in a class or not than to take their word for it, then the class doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > A person who commits racial discrimination against someone who’s black may not defend himself by saying, “It turns out the dude is actually Native American, and I don’t have a problem with Native Americans.” The putative reality of race is immaterial in discrimination cases. You are confused. The scenario described here does not raise equal protection concerns because you are not talking about a law that divides people into classes. Your analogy just has nothing to do with anything. > [@](#): > > And a law that forbids animal sacrifices may not defend itself by saying, “Who can really say whether Santeria is a real religion?” because religion exists only in people’s heads, much the same as sexual orientation. Another complete failure on your part. People of a particular religion (or the religious in general) are not a suspect class. Rather, laws that discriminate on the basis of religion receive strict scrutiny because they deal with a fundamental right (i.e., the free exercise of religion). So, again, this analogy is just complete off-the-wall stupid. > [@](#): > > Whatever “realness” these conditions have is immaterial to equal protection arguments. It’s something that, as near as I can tell, you’ve invented to try to create a distinction between race and sexual orientation. But it’s irrelevant. Forgive me for not being all that impressed with “as near as you can tell.” Hire a lawyer and come back buddy, you are out of your league here. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/217 "2012-05-10T02:49:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well you are wrong. > > [100% provably wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification#Suspect_class). > > You may disagree with the notion but religion (among other things) is defined as a suspect class by the SCOTUS. > > I have zero problem with you trying to make a case why that is wrongheaded but it is the reality. Please cite a supreme court case on point. The secondary sources you are reading are short-handing the jurisprudence here. Laws that discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation do receive strict scrutiny, but it’s not because members of a religion are a suspect class, it’s because of the fundamental right involved. So, places like wikipedia etc. will often say that religion is a suspect class when that actually isn’t technically the case. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/218 "2012-05-10T02:53:26Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > Perhaps Bricker or Rand Rover could correct my misunderstandings, but as I see it, the current laws banning gay marriage and gay civil unions are not on the same level as anti-miscegenation laws. Those laws actually resulted in prosecution for violating them, whereas the anti-gay laws of today only prevent state-level recognition of gay marriage and civil unions. > > I certainly hope I’m wrong. **Bricker** did address this: > [@Bricker](#): > > \ > > A law that awards benefits to a certain class and denies them to another class must be defended at least on the grounds of rational basis. And if the classes involved are suspect classes, then the law must survive a higher level of scrutiny. > > And the class of homosexual persons should be considered a suspect class, by the reasoning enunciated in “Footnote Four.” The analysis her extends beyond criminal penalties as was the case in Loving v. Virginia. It is the state granting benefits to some and denying them to others. To be fair the state (maybe should be capital “S” State…never sure about that) often gives things to some group and not another. But as **Bricker** noted there has to be a Rational Basis test that it passes as to why A should get a benefit and B shouldn’t (e.g. you cannot say A gets it because A is white and B does not because B is black). Frankly Rational Basis is an amazingly low hurdle to cross but it is there. Many think sexual preference should be in Intermediate Scrutiny which is a much higher standard. Others want Strict Scrutiny (a higher standard still). Some suggest a “Rational Basis with teeth” which makes Rational Basis semi-meaningful (Rational Basis is such a low bar that it is darn close to meaningless…with teeth suggests it has a bit more oomph). So far the SCOTUS has not dealt with this. I think both sides are scared to go there as it would be a final answer to this for a long time and given the court’s makeup it could go either way. No one wants to roll the dice on it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/219 "2012-05-10T03:21:59Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > That’s right. The 14th Amendment mentions “creed” expressly; for constitutional-law purposes, that makes it as suspect a class as race. No lawyer is gonna tell you any different. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/220 "2012-05-10T03:23:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > So, if you want to strike down anti-gay marriage laws on equal protection grounds, you need to show that gay people are a suspect class. To do that, you need to first show that there exists a class of people called gay people in the first place. The defining feature of a class of people is that one can determine the members of it. Hell, that might be the defining feature of a class of anything–it’s just part of the concept of a class. > > If there’s no way to determine if a person is in a class or not than to take their word for it, then the class doesn’t exist. Do you have any actual case law for this proposition, because I’ve not seen anything to support this idea. If I fire you because I think you are black, you don’t have to prove you are black to be in the protected class. If I refuse to allow you to vote because you are Jewish, you don’t have to prove you’re Jewish. It is the perception of the discriminator, not the actual identity of the person, that matters. For example in Loving v. Viriginia, I don’t recall the Court requiring Mildred Loving to prove she was of African origin or that Richard Loving had to prove he was 100% white before striking down the anti-miscegenation laws. It was enough that the law made that distinction and that Mildred and Richard were perceived that way by the person who refused to allow them to marry. So I’m curious why you seem to have required this additional element that, to my memory, hasn’t existed before in determining whether something is a suspect class or not. Do you have any actual basis for it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=12)