# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/121 "2012-05-09T17:05:00Z")
How very [Christian](http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0splcfoMp1r9qinmo1_500.jpg) of them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/122 "2012-05-09T17:08:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So here’s the argument: > > 1. Laws that burden suspect classes are analyzed under EP with a higher level of scruntiny than rational basis review. > > 2. Sexual orientation, although not yet recognized as a suspect class, should be, because it fits the characteristics first articulated in Carolene Prodcuts’ “Footnote Four.” > > 3. By analogy, gender classifications are analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, and thus so should sexual orientation. > > 4. Analyzing a statute that limits marriage only to a man and a woman under intermediate scrutiny means that the statute must fail. Do we need to make orientation a suspect class, or can we do this with no-frills gender classifications? I mean, say a law makes it illegal for a black man to marry a white woman solely because, well, he’s black; _if you were white,_ we explain to him, _you could marry her._ That’s discrimination based on his race, and so the law can be struck down on EP grounds, right? And if, by contrast, a law makes it illegal for a child of ten to marry a white woman solely because of his age – _if you were older, you could marry her_ – well, that’s discrimination, but we’re okay with it and can’t likewise strike the law down on EP grounds, since a mere rational basis suffices, right? And so imagine a law that makes it illegal for, say my daughter to marry that same woman – explaining in no uncertain terms that it’s solely because my daughter is, y’know, female. _“If you were male,”_ we make explicit, _“you could marry her.”_ How is that not already sex-based discrimination? Facing not as high a hurdle as race-based discrimination, but higher than age-based discrimination? ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/123 "2012-05-09T17:11:04Z")
Oh, and **Bricker** , now that (I hope) we’re done being pissy with each other, a serious question: is it possible that items 2 & 3 on your list could be elided, in that the true basis for denying marriage is gender itself? It’s not like the clerk inquires whether two people are in fact sexually attracted to each other before issuing the license, and as opponents point out sometimes, a gay guy can in fact get married . . . to a woman. So the pertinent class is gender. Or has that argument been disposed of in some way already? Damn it, ninja’d by **The Other Waldo Pepper**! ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/124 "2012-05-09T17:11:31Z")
Can we please move away from whether the US Constitution allows laws that deny gays the right to marry, and focus on the fact that it’s a hateful, ignorant, fearful, tyranny-of-the-majority, dickish thing to do? I’m not sure going to SCOTUS to knock it down is the smartest thing, because I’m honestly not confident our constitution does forbid hateful laws that forbid certain groups from marrying. Are marrying age laws legal? One day enough haters will die, that 3/4 of the states will approve a national marriage amendment that allows gay marriage. ---
**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, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/125 "2012-05-09T17:12:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Please point out an exception for family members in the law. Which law exactly are you talking about? Certainly, if the aunt in question was trying to shove her way into the voting booth with her nephews to make sure they actually voted the way she wanted them to, or if she somehow managed to destroy their ballots, that **would** be illegal; there’s no exception for family members in the actual polling procedure. As **Bricker** notes, this is why we have a secret ballot. But I don’t think it’s the law’s business if one adult family member in a family discussion demands that another adult family member vote a certain way, or even if disagreements over the correct way to vote end up breaking up the family’s household. Hell, couples have even got divorced over political disagreements about how they should vote, but I don’t know of any case where either party has been indicted for electoral fraud as a result. Like I said, I don’t think that bitter family disputes about voting are a **good** thing; I’m just not at all convinced that they’re actually **illegal**. And I rather suspect that if the political positions were reversed, you’d think the same. If, for example, a die-hard Republican father threatened to disown his adult son for refusing to vote against Obama, would you be accusing the father of committing electoral fraud? I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/126 "2012-05-09T17:18:32Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > Jesus, **Bricker** , rest your sphincter. In a thread about SSM, them might be considered fightin’ words! ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/127 "2012-05-09T17:19:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am willing to bet nothing I wrote is something you would disagree with. > > Bet hey…why bother when you can go with assumptions? You would lose that bet, at least as long as you understand that I disagree with what you wrote not as factual assertions but as efficacious arguments. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. Yes, the Massachusetts Supremes found that their state EP required same-sex marriage. But what of it? How many other state courts have found the reverse? Why is Massachusetts so persuasive in a federal analysis anyway? And, yes, a federal appeals court did overturn California’s ban. But other federal appeals courts have upheld states’ bans. See, e.g.., Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). And the Supreme Court itself ruled in Baker v. Nelson that the denial of a same-sex marriage right was not a federal question. So in terms of persuasive argument, why is the Ninth Circuit more compelling than the Eighth? Or the Supremes, for that matter? ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/128 "2012-05-09T17:19:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And I rather suspect that if the political positions were reversed, you’d think the same. If, for example, a die-hard Republican father threatened to disown his adult son for refusing to vote against Obama, would you be accusing the father of committing electoral fraud? I doubt it. If I threaten you with some unpleasant action if you do not vote a certain way is that illegal (e.g. you are my employee and I threaten to fire you)? I do not know…sounds suspect to me but as we all agree we can cast a secret ballot so the person doing the threatening really has no way to ensure you voted the way they wanted to. (I do not know…really asking…just taking the family element away for a moment to keep the water less muddy.) ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/129 "2012-05-09T17:23:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t think it’s a terrible argument just because it hasn’t been tried. Your pal Scalia almost always raises "the state’s compelling interest in preserving traditional sexual mores"in gay rights cases. The legislative history of these enactments is almost always full of Biblical allusions. And my pal Scalia ALSO always shots down arguments that seek to include the legislative history, because he says, correctly, that legislators vote for the words, and we have no way of knowing what thoughts animated the majority of legislators. It’s a terrible argument in this context. Sure, some novel theory may get tried and work. But in terms of showing that an argument exists that is grounded in current case law, it sucks. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/130 "2012-05-09T17:24:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Which law exactly are you talking about? Certainly, if the aunt in question was trying to shove her way into the voting booth with her nephews to make sure they actually voted the way she wanted them to, or if she somehow managed to destroy their ballots, that **would** be illegal; there’s no exception for family members in the actual polling procedure. As **Bricker** notes, this is why we have a secret ballot. > > But I don’t think it’s the law’s business if one adult family member in a family discussion demands that another adult family member vote a certain way, or even if disagreements over the correct way to vote end up breaking up the family’s household. > > Hell, couples have even got divorced over political disagreements about how they should vote, but I don’t know of any case where either party has been indicted for electoral fraud as a result. > > Like I said, I don’t think that bitter family disputes about voting are a **good** thing; I’m just not at all convinced that they’re actually **illegal**. > > And I rather suspect that if the political positions were reversed, you’d think the same. If, for example, a die-hard Republican father threatened to disown his adult son for refusing to vote against Obama, would you be accusing the father of committing electoral fraud? I doubt it. > **[Milestone Documents](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/list)** > > The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives. \* (b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e). \* \*Whoever … pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both \* Please point out where the exception for the family members is. And yes, I would be just as accusatory about someone forcing someone else to vote Republican. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/131 "2012-05-09T17:27:54Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > Oh, and **Bricker** , now that (I hope) we’re done being pissy with each other, a serious question: is it possible that items 2 & 3 on your list could be elided, in that the true basis for denying marriage is gender itself? It’s not like the clerk inquires whether two people are in fact sexually attracted to each other before issuing the license, and as opponents point out sometimes, a gay guy can in fact get married . . . to a woman. So the pertinent class is gender. Or has that argument been disposed of in some way already? > > Damn it, ninja’d by **The Other Waldo Pepper**! Wow, two great minds that think as one! That’s an interesting twist on the issue, and quite frankly I can’t think of any place it’s been tried. With the benefit of two minutes’ analysis, I can’t see a fundamental flaw. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/132 "2012-05-09T17:28:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If I threaten you with some unpleasant action if you do not vote a certain way is that illegal (e.g. you are my employee and I threaten to fire you)? There have been several well-publicized cases recently where employees **have** been fired for supporting political positions that their employers didn’t like (e.g., the Alabama employee with a John Kerry bumper sticker in 2004), and all of those firings were legal. Of course, the employer didn’t know how the employee actually voted on any of those political issues (because of the secret ballot thingy), but there was nothing illegal about firing the employees for indicating that they **intended** to vote in a way the employers disapproved of. Political speech is not a protected category when it comes to employment discrimination. Again, I don’t think that trying to exert this kind of pressure on other people’s political choices is a **good** thing. But that doesn’t mean that it ought to be illegal. And if firing an employee for the way they intend to vote doesn’t count as voter intimidation or electoral fraud, then I really don’t see how family members quarreling over the way they intend to vote would. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/133 "2012-05-09T17:33:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You would lose that bet, at least as long as you understand that I disagree with what you wrote not as factual assertions but as efficacious arguments. **Rand Rover** said: > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > (And if you want to argue about it, then actually write up an argument, and I will respond. I will not respond to drivel such as “what about equal protection, eh?”.) I am noting that this is a dishonest debate tactic to dismiss an argument (drivel in his words) that actually is very relevant to the discussion. Indeed it is the primary argument (if not the only one) used when discussing the legality of SSM. To dismiss the EP argument as not being worth talking about is tantamount to saying there is nothing to discuss. I noted the other cases not to imply they are the final word but that two courts (at least) fully accepted the argument suggesting it is not “drivel”. If it was drivel one would think the courts would either refuse to hear the case in the first place as without merit or suggest in their opinions that the EP argument fails on the face of it. Not only did they do no such thing but they felt it was compelling enough to rule in favor of SSM on EP grounds. **Rand Rover** also said: > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > If you actually make an argument that the equal protection or due process clauses of the US Constitutikn apply here, I’ll respond. Seems to me the cases I cited are excellent examples of how due process and EP apply here. No need for me to reinvent the wheel. I’ll also note he has not replied as promised. I also said the SCOTUS may disagree which I think suggests I am not taking those two cases as the final word on the matter. So, where did I go wrong again? ---
**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, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/134 "2012-05-09T17:37:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [Milestone Documents | National Archives](http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript) > \* > (b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e). \* > > \*Whoever … pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both > \* > > Please point out where the exception for the family members is. I question whether family members having private disputes about their voting preferences counts as “intimidation, threat or coercion” or “payment” in the eyes of the law. Similarly, it is forbidden by law for one person to attempt to coerce or threaten another to prevent them from, say, using public transportation. For example, it would be illegal for a white person to approach a black person at a bus stop and say “We don’t want you [racial epithets] riding on our buses and if you try to get on that bus you’re going to regret it.” But if a wife yells at her husband “If you get on that bus to go to that floozy of yours I swear I’ll divorce you!”, I don’t think that the law would take any official notice of that as illegal “coercion or threat”. ---
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/135 "2012-05-09T17:42:42Z")
Oh, for those questioning the motivations behind opposing gay marriage, I don’t think it’s necessarily rooted in bigotry. It could also be rooted in paranoia. I think some conservative Christians believe that liberals/atheists are well intentioned adherents to shadowy overlords from the Illuminati that actually set the real policy, which is an attempt to remove society from Biblical morality for the sexual gratification (once everyone is debased, we can begin copulating in the streets and usher in the rule of the AntiChrist) or Sadistic pleasure (haha, poor deluded fools will end up in hell) of said Illuminati members. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/136 "2012-05-09T17:43:31Z")
This must be the Democratic voting fraud we’ve been hearing so much about. Granny Hedonia – a one-woman crime spree. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/137 "2012-05-09T17:49:56Z")
The whole thing stinks. The fact that this “right” is not mentioned or 'allowed" in the Constitution doesn’t mean shit to me. Most rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution. Anyone who falls back on the “it isn’t listed so it isn’t allowed or permitted” is a fucking idiot and should GTFO. States rights doesn’t mean shit either, it’s been used to “allow” Jim Crow, miscegnation laws, “separate but equal”, segregation, and slavery. What these illiterate Bible thumping hypocrites say about “it’s the Bible” doesn’t mean shit either. Most of those inbred assholes don’t even know what is in there… if they can even read that is. And even if they did, “congress shall make no law respecting…” and that includes not only the free expression of religion, but also the freedom to not be forced into following the “values” of someone else’s religion - and it does “flow down” to the state level. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/138 "2012-05-09T17:54:15Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Oh, for those questioning the motivations behind opposing gay marriage, I don’t think it’s necessarily rooted in bigotry. It could also be rooted in paranoia. I think some conservative Christians believe that liberals/atheists are well intentioned adherents to shadowy overlords from the Illuminati that actually set the real policy, which is an attempt to remove society from Biblical morality for the sexual gratification (once everyone is debased, we can begin copulating in the streets and usher in the rule of the AntiChrist) or Sadistic pleasure (haha, poor deluded fools will end up in hell) of said Illuminati members. So… biogtry or on the other hand total, raving insanity? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/139 "2012-05-09T17:54:49Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Oh, for those questioning the motivations behind opposing gay marriage, I don’t think it’s necessarily rooted in bigotry. It could also be rooted in paranoia. I think some conservative Christians believe that liberals/atheists are well intentioned adherents to shadowy overlords from the Illuminati that actually set the real policy, which is an attempt to remove society from Biblical morality for the sexual gratification (once everyone is debased, we can begin copulating in the streets and usher in the rule of the AntiChrist) or Sadistic pleasure (haha, poor deluded fools will end up in hell) of said Illuminati members. As the relative of a lot of anti-gay fundies that live in NC, I think you are vastly overthinking this. My relatives, my mom included, have this one and only one argument: the Bible is against homosexuality. No need for conspiracies, they were simply indoctrinated into thinking the bible is the word of their omnipotent creator, and must be obeyed (except for the stuff about clothes made from multiple threads and the like for some reason). ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/140 "2012-05-09T18:05:17Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > No need for conspiracies, they were simply indoctrinated into thinking the bible is the word of their omnipotent creator, and must be obeyed (except for the stuff about clothes made from multiple threads and the like for some reason). Also that stuff Jesus said about renouncing your wealth, and you can’t sere two masters - pick God or money. That’s metaphorical. But the stuff about teh GAY? Cold stone truth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=8)