# 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:** 5
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/81 "2012-05-09T15:46:18Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I have a real problem understanding that there is any stance the Republican party actually does something about that is so important that it outweighs treating homosexuals as second class citizens and legislating hate against them solely for the purpose of hate. Personally, I have trouble thinking of any positive action that would outweigh that kind of hatred and bigotry. Pecunia omnia vincit… ---
**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 9, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/82 "2012-05-09T15:49:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Nope. With that one word, I have fully answered your assertion. If you actually make an argument that the equal protection or due process clauses of the US Constitutikn apply here, I’ll respond. And you would be wrong. We’ve done this at the SDMB before. If the case gets to the Supreme Court what do you suppose the proponents of SSM will argue is the reason their constitutional rights are being violated? The [Massachusetts Supreme Court](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) ruled that it was a violation of the state’s equal protection clause to deny SSM. A [federal appeals court](http://www.economist.com/node/21547262) overturned California’s gay-marriage ban as well based on equal protection and due process. You may disagree, the SCOTUS may disagree but that is the argument and it is a compelling one. Compelling enough that the Massachusetts supreme court felt it had merit enough to overturn their laws. So did a federal appeals court in California. Hand waving that argument away with a “nope” is patently wrong. It IS the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/83 "2012-05-09T15:54:30Z")
> [@newcrasher](#): > > From now on, I will only see the parts of NC visible on I95 as I drive through. Not stopping to get gas, get a drink, or piss in their rest stop. I appreciate the sentiment, but if you’re holding your bladder break until you cross south into South Carolina… > [@SC Constitution](#): > > A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. And driving even further south: > [@GA Constitution](#): > > Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. > (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. > (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship. And finally to Florida: > [@FL Constitution](#): > > Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. Now, traveling north, you have only one more hurdle: > [@Va Constitution](#): > > That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. From there, I-95 takes you north into Maryland, which is same-sex-marriage friendly (at least the legislature is). This year, Maryland passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriages. However, the bill does not go inot effect until 2013, which was done by negotiation to allow opponents to place a referendum on the ballot this November in an effort to defeat the plan before it becomes law. My best guess is that this will fail, but be advised there’s a chance that your bladder problems might include Maryland after November. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/84 "2012-05-09T15:55:15Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Nope. With that one word, I have fully answered your assertion. If you actually make an argument that the equal protection or due process clauses of the US Constitutikn apply here, I’ll respond. I’d be grateful for your opinion on whether they applied in _Loving v. Virginia_, or if, in your opinion, SCOTUS misapplied the clauses in that decision. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/85 "2012-05-09T15:58:35Z")
> [@Klostertal](#): > > I did what I could. I voted. I got people out to vote. My area (Raleigh, Wake County) voted heavily against. In my neighborhood it was 30 to 1 signs against versus signs for (I counted). Everyone I know well enough to talk politics, down to the last person, was against this amendment. > > Sorry everyone. :mad: > > I’m very disappointed and embarrassed, but not surprised. > > A big factor though I think is that the NC Legislature, R and D alike, chose to have the referendum on the primary ballot rather than on the general when there’s a much higher turnout. > > Why they chose to do that, I don’t know. Sorry for you, **Klostertal**. Need a place to stay? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/86 "2012-05-09T16:01:01Z")
They’re losing and they know it. Why is it even needed, this amendment? Thirty years ago, no one would have thought such a thing was needed, everybody knew that marriage between people of the same gender was right out. But not any more. Now, they _have_ to act, they _have_ to move on it. Because they are losing. Its a rear-guard action, defensive, an effort to hold ground that previously wasn’t even threatened. They’re piling sandbags on the beach to hold back the tide, and as it comes in, each wave is a little higher than the last. They will lose quietly, with a shrug, or they will lose kicking and screaming. But they will lose. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/87 "2012-05-09T16:03:01Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > With that one word, I have fully answered your assertion. Was the word “drivel”? Because if so, it was both an ad hominem and an OP ib4ing. > [@jayjay](#): > > Thanks, Pennsylvania! My grandmother lives there with her partner, I feel for her. I think she’d be as vehement in the voting drives as Ann Hedonia’s mother given a referendum. Well, perhaps not the whole threatening to kick anyone out of the house thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/88 "2012-05-09T16:04:26Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > The amazing thing about Amendment 1 is that it doesn’t just preclude gay marriage, but civil unions. I can understand - emphatically _not_ “agree with,” but understand - how one could honestly say “I bear homosexuals no ill-will, and wish them well - but ‘marriage’ is a specific label for hetersexual relationships, and I find it distressing to apply it to anything else.” > > But I can’t understand banning civil unions as anything other than pure malice - not just misguided fundamentalism, but an actual desire to keep people from visiting their sick loved ones in the hospital. That’s even more bizarre than opposition to gay marriage, imho. QFT. There was a time I opposed “marriage” – quotes added to signal my opposition was based on the use of the word – for same-sex couples. But even back then I supported a functionally identical civil union. ---
**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, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/89 "2012-05-09T16:08:05Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And the people of Alabama thought blacks should be slaves, then that they shouldn’t be allowed to eat at the lunch counter or vote. And people of Georgia thought blacks and whites shouldn’t be allowed to marry each other. And the people of Texas thought same sex partners shouldn’t be allowed to have sexual relations with each other. I have a real problem understanding that there is any stance the Republican party actually does something about that is so important that it outweighs treating homosexuals as second class citizens and legislating hate against them solely for the purpose of hate. Personally, I have trouble thinking of any positive action that would outweigh that kind of hatred and bigotry. In the first part, you are mixing up issues that have constitutional dimensions with plain old voting issues. In the second part, the issue I think is more important than gay marriage is the economy. Gay people and straight people swifter under the Democrats anti-growth pro-stagnation brain-dead agenda. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/90 "2012-05-09T16:09:15Z")
See, **Vinny**? Told ya so. ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/91 "2012-05-09T16:18:08Z")
Well, it takes a bit of the edge off my bitterness to see that my vote, and my signs and stickers, may have had some slight effect, as Wake County (along with nearby Durham, Orange, and Chatham) [voted against this travesty](http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80750/en/md.html?cid=425000010). As someone above said, this is a clear rural/urban split. So if you’re interested in seeing NC, or simply peeing or buying a beverage on your drive to Florida, please feel free to check out the Triangle, or vacation on the coast or in Asheville, or visit Charlotte, all places where sane, rational people prevail. So many things about this amendment make me mad, but aside from the bigotry, and the clear attempt to pass this using the ignorance of the populace and by sneaking it into a primary vote, the wording just makes my head hurt as a lawyer. It is SO poorly drafted, it’s astounding. This morning I was describing to a friend what I would do (indeed, what I believe would be an ethical duty) if I were a defense lawyer for an unmarried person accused of domestic violence. I would list all the covered relationships in the statute, and argue that they constitute “domestic legal unions” and thus cannot be recognized under the superseding law of the amendment. Therefore the case against my client should be dismissed, because the domestic legal union in question isn’t marriage between one man and one woman, and therefore cannot be recognized in this state. “Domestic legal union” isn’t a term defined anywhere in NC law, and you can bet your ass that every lawyer who has the barest chance of defining it in their clients’ favor will be flooding the system with this type of argument. I don’t know if I’m more angry or depressed that so many people felt it was worth causing untold legal chaos and vast financial costs just so they could really double extra super show gay people how second class they are. Want to laugh and cry at the same time? I personally know one guy who voted for the amendment because he’s a good, upright Baptist who thinks God’s will for marriage should be law. And last night he wanted to talk to his wife about them having a threesome with another chick. You can’t make this stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/92 "2012-05-09T16:20:36Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > and by “made” I mean she drove them to the polls when early voting started and made them go in and register and vote NO as a condition for continuing to live under her roof. Electoral fraud. Intimidation and vote buying. ---
**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 9, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/93 "2012-05-09T16:20:41Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > In the first part, you are mixing up issues that have constitutional dimensions with plain old voting issues. No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that your cop of of “well, they voted for it”, is just that, a cop out. > [@Rand Rover](#): > > In the second part, the issue I think is more important than gay marriage is the economy. That’s for showing your true colors. Sacrifice the civil rights of the minority (hey, you’re not one of them, so it’s not big deal) to chase some perceived economic gain that is mostly just rhetoric to get elected. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/94 "2012-05-09T16:22:52Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > Want to laugh and cry at the same time? I personally know one guy who voted for the amendment because he’s a good, upright Baptist who thinks God’s will for marriage should be law. And last night he wanted to talk to his wife about them having a threesome with another chick. You can’t make this stuff up. Well, the Bible’s got nothing against concubines. Seriously, **UC** , good work on the resistance movement, and eventually your fellow Tar Heels will come around. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/95 "2012-05-09T16:24:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its a rear-guard action. Ummm, phrasing… ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/96 "2012-05-09T16:25:44Z")
And yeah, for what it’s worth, there are at least three federal bases for suits about this amendment - First Amendment entanglement issues, Fourteenth Amendment, and Full Faith and Credit Clause issues will all be hitting the courts in short order, I’m sure. I have never seen an argument for disallowing marriage equality that hasn’t already been addressed in _Loving_, except for the monumentally idiotic procreation argument, which fails on its face unless proponents want to disallow marriage for straight sterile people as well. If \*Loving \*made it to the SCOTUS, this issue ought to as well. ---
**Author:** ![Southern\_Yankee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/southern_yankee/32/2800_2.png) [@Southern\_Yankee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Southern_Yankee)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/97 "2012-05-09T16:25:44Z")
I was hoping my own county, which has an ever-growing populations of transplants from NYC and other places, would come out against, but it was 3-to-1 in favor. I thought things might be turning for the better when NC went Obama in 2008 but the turnout was very low yesterday and the other side did a better job of rallying the vote. Righteous bigotry defeats apathy once again. ---
**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 9, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/98 "2012-05-09T16:28:54Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > I have never seen an argument for disallowing marriage equality that hasn’t already been addressed in _Loving_, except for the monumentally idiotic procreation argument, which fails on its face unless proponents want to disallow marriage for straight sterile people as well. If \*Loving \*made it to the SCOTUS, this issue ought to as well. But **Rand Rover** says that EP arguments don’t count! Nevermind what numerous courts have said about it! ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/99 "2012-05-09T16:29:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > See, **Vinny**? Told ya so. Sorry, I was taking a _Silkwood_ shower. What’d I miss? ---
**Author:** ![gytalf2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@gytalf2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gytalf2000)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/100 "2012-05-09T16:29:12Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > The amazing thing about Amendment 1 is that it doesn’t just preclude gay marriage, but civil unions. I can understand - emphatically _not_ “agree with,” but understand - how one could honestly say “I bear homosexuals no ill-will, and wish them well - but ‘marriage’ is a specific label for hetersexual relationships, and I find it distressing to apply it to anything else.” > > But I can’t understand banning civil unions as anything other than pure malice - not just misguided fundamentalism, but an actual desire to keep people from visiting their sick loved ones in the hospital. That’s even more bizarre than opposition to gay marriage, imho. Wow, I didn’t know that! I know quite a number of fundamentalist Christians (hey, I live in Nashville, TN) who do the whole “no ill will to gays, civil union is fine, just don’t call it marriage” thing. So the Amendment doesn’t even allow civil unions? That’s just pathetic! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=6)