North Carolina passes hateful Amendment 1

Ok. Just don’t think you scored some points or whatever based on my lack of response.

Race is, at this point, much the same: a person is considered the race they consider themselves to be. Religion is the same: a person is generally considered to be the religion they consider themselves to be. Am I wrong?

I do not think any state as passed a law saying same sex marriages are illegal. They passed laws saying they essentially do not recognize them as married.

As such the same-sex couple is still being punished by being denied access to the same benefits (as noted above) that married couples do. Group A gets something, Group B doesn’t because we don’t like them.

I also have no doubt that some states would actually criminalize SSM if they could but they realize that is a bridge too far at least for the time being.

A discussion of Rand and inalienable or god given rights is fine in a philosophy class and may even serve to inform policy makers. It is an abstraction though that ignores the realities of the world.

In the end we live in society and the society, via its laws, is where the rubber of those philosophies hits the road.

Claiming something is not the same as being something.

Is it common for people to sit down at some point in their life and ponder whether they want to be gay or straight? Maybe sit with a notebook and check off the pros and cons?

Most gay men I know, while perfectly happy with who they are, have told me no one in their right mind would willingly choose to be gay considering all the bullshit that comes with it.

Religion cases invoke strict scrutiny based on the fundamental right implicated, not based on religious persons as a suspect class. The concept of race as a suspect class is rooted in a animmutable concept of race that J’s definitely different than the concept of race asserted by some people now, but that current difference doesn’t change the EP analysis–it is still premised on there being such a thing as race that a person cannot change about themselves.

I am gay. Prove me wrong.

With race, it seems that there’s something immutable about race that a person cannot change; nevertheless, it’s always been the case that a person can change what they claim about their own race (with varying degrees of success, depending on their phenotype). Do you disagree?

It seems that something similar applies with orientation. The best science I’ve seen on the subject suggest that there’s something immutable about orientation that a person cannot change; nevertheless, it’s always been the case that a person can change what they claim about their own orientation (with varying degrees of success, depending on their behavior). Do you disagree?

I do not need to.

The Supreme Court recognizes religion and national origin among suspect classes.

I am Jewish. Prove me wrong.

I am German. Prove me wrong.

You do not need to be unambiguously identifiable as belonging to a particular group to have EP apply.

Can we get please get back to bashing my current backward-ass state of residence?

Who cares if an individual is in the group or not? In aggregate, the group exists and the law burdens it.

Who cares if many people claim to have feelings towrds both genders? Many don’t - indeed, those that don’t are even more of a minority, then, aren’t they?

But there is no “individual right”, as Ayn Rand defines it, that is being violated. Her quote was being brought up to pretend that she would have been philosophically opposed to anti-SSM laws. She wouldn’t have been.

When Ayn Rand joins the the thread, I’ll be happy to address her arguments. Now I’m talking to poster Rand Rover about his claims.

There are different subthreads. If you don’t want to discuss Ayn Rand’s position, don’t respond to that subthread.

A thread in your honor.

Your state sucks. They’re hateful jerkwads.

I don’t see how “sexual orientation can change” is a factor. Gay people are not trying to get rights only for gay people, they are trying to get rights now only afforded to straight people - the right to have their marriage recognized by the state.

A large employer here has decided to make benefits available to the partners of same sex couples IF the couple has been married or entered into a domestic partnership recognized in another state, even if the State of Georgia does not recognize the marriage/DP. While I think it’s a step in the right direction, it puts a burden on gay couples - they have to go out of state to get something straight couples can go down to the local courthouse and get.

Question. Would this assinine ammendment prevent NC from allowing domestic partnerships, as long as they don’t call it “marriage”?

Thanks, I don’t want the message to get diluted.

It bans ALL types of domestic union except marriage between a man and a woman in the state.

Here is the text:

As I understand it, yes. It also bans civil unions between heterosexual couples.

This is the entirety of it: "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. "

Correct. It’s legislated bigotry.