Pecunia omnia vincit…
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 ruled that it was a violation of the state’s equal protection clause to deny SSM.
A federal appeals court 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.
I appreciate the sentiment, but if you’re holding your bladder break until you cross south into South Carolina…
And driving even further south:
And finally to Florida:
Now, traveling north, you have only one more hurdle:
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.
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.
Sorry for you, Klostertal.
Need a place to stay?
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.
Was the word “drivel”? Because if so, it was both an ad hominem and an OP ib4ing.
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.
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.
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.
See, Vinny? Told ya so.
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. 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.
Electoral fraud. Intimidation and vote buying.
No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that your cop of of “well, they voted for it”, is just that, a cop out.
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.
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.
Ummm, phrasing…
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.
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.
But Rand Rover says that EP arguments don’t count! Nevermind what numerous courts have said about it!
Sorry, I was taking a Silkwood shower. What’d I miss?
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!