North Carolina passes hateful Amendment 1

[Rand_Rover]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

I am gay. Prove me wrong.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Rand_Rover

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.

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?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Rand_Rover

I am gay. Prove me wrong.

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.

[Southern_Yankee]

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

[Bricker]

@Rand_Rover

A man can have sex with men on day x and claim to be a homosexual then have sex with women on day y and claim to be heterosexual. There is no test we can perform on that man to determine if he J’s truly one or the other. Moreover, even speaking in terms of one or the other doesn’t necessarily make sense given that many people claim to have sexual feelings toward both genders.

A person isn’t a minority for EP purposes if they can choose whether to be in the minority group or not (by claiming or not to be gay).

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?

[Terr]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

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.

[Bricker]

@Terr

I thought we were talking about Ayn Rand’s position on the matter. If you want to argue Supreme Court’s position, that’s a different subject.

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.

[Terr]

@Bricker

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.

[Czarcasm]

@Rand_Rover

I am gay. Prove me wrong.

A thread in your honor.

[bup]

@Southern_Yankee

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

Your state sucks. They’re hateful jerkwads.

[SnakesCatLady]

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”?

[Southern_Yankee]

@bup

Your state sucks. They’re hateful jerkwads.

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

[Whack-a-Mole]

@SnakesCatLady

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

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

Here is the text:

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.

SOURCE: North Carolina Amendment 1, Definition of Marriage and Prohibition of Civil Unions Amendment (May 2012) - Ballotpedia

[Jas09]

@SnakesCatLady

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

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. "

[Southern_Yankee]

@Jas09

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.

[Rand_Rover]

@Bricker

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?

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.

[Rand_Rover]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

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 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.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@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.

So religion is not a suspect class then?

[Anne_Neville]

@Skammer

The Biblical arguments against gay marriage are weak (IMO), but not for this reason… The problem is too many Christians focus way too narrowly on a couple of verses and use them to justify their ‘ick’ response to homosexuality.

The Bible devotes a lot more attention to interfaith marriage than it does to anything involving gays or same-sex sexual activity. Why are these people not trying to get prohibitions on interfaith marriage into state constitutions, if their concern is marriages that the Bible is against?

[gamerunknown]

@Ayn Rand

The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

WWARD?

@Ayn Rand

Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal.

@Ayn Rand

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Hmm, that’s a novel interpretation of rights. Certainly alters course from Thomas Paine. Theft does not deprive someone of a right, nor does trespass? I could shit on Ayn Rand’s carpet or steal her steam powered vibrator without abrogating her rights? Very stringent definition indeed, from someone I’d expect to defend the rights of property.

@Skammer

Nowhere does God in the Bible command or encourage any of these relationships. It’s analagous to slavery, which is described but not proscribed.

Oof.

2 Samuel 12:7-8.

@The Lord

Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Leviticus 25:44-46

@The Lord

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Edit:

@Rand Rover

I cant look at some unemployed person and tell them they don’t have a job because I want gay people to be able to marry.

Just out of interest, what do you think of “necessary unemployment”? I always assumed that Libertarians were vigorously opposed to the concept of “full employment” or semi-productive labour* (since they contravene the inalienable right of property) and simultaneously embraced and chastised the industrial reserve army: they form an excellent distraction for the proletariat.

• Didn’t Roosevelt once snub Mises at a banquet or something?