Amendment One

[bluefrog]

We have a vote in North Carolina next week on a state constitutional amendment.
The measure would define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

It hasn't gotten much national attention but it has gotten much support from Christian, Tea Party and conservative groups.

The debate has gotten pretty heated lately and it looks like the amendment may pass. It's really frustrating. This is why people refer to the republicans as "regressives".

Some of the shit people have been saying/doing:

pastor gives parents 'special dispensation' to use violence against gay kids

Man shoots anti-amendment one sign

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If it goes before a vote of the people, then let it pass of fail as the populace sees fit.

 

[Denny Crane]

I am really surprised this issue hasn't gone to the Supreme Court.

It seems like a slam dunk 14th amendment case to me.

 

[PapaG]

I am really surprised this issue hasn't gone to the Supreme Court.

It seems like a slam dunk 14th amendment case to me.

I'm pro-gay marriage, but the 14th amendment does open up the federal government to other less-accepted marriages. Redefining equal protection as a sexual issue probably isn't the best way for the federal government to take even more power. I guess I'm just somebody who believes that the 10th Amendment still has a purpose, outside of obvious discrimination.

An idea is, if you're gay and you disagree with your populace in North Carolina, move to a state that has a more accepting view on homosexual marriage. I'd think that a "libertarian" like you, Denny, would see an obvious 10th Amendment issue when you see one.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm pro-gay marriage, but the 14th amendment does open up the federal government to other less-accepted marriages. Redefining equal protection as a sexual issue probably isn't the best way for the federal government to take even more power. I guess I'm just somebody who believes that the 10th Amendment still has a purpose, outside of obvious discrimination.

An idea is, if you're gay and you disagree with your populace in North Carolina, move to a state that has a more accepting view on homosexual marriage. I'd think that a "libertarian" like you, Denny, would see an obvious 10th Amendment issue when you see one.

The 14th requires the states to treat its citizens equally. Allowing some to marry and denying that right to others is not equal treatment. Hence a slam dunk.

The 14th is explicitly part of the constitution, so the 10th doesn't apply.

 

[PapaG]

The 14th requires the states to treat its citizens equally. Allowing some to marry and denying that right to others is not equal treatment. Hence a slam dunk.

The 14th is explicitly part of the constitution, so the 10th doesn't apply.

That's a very broad brush. Wouldn't the 14th also allow for a brother and sister to marry, or a father and daughter, or a grown man and a 12 year-old boy? Equal protection is a very broad brush, and thinking it's a "slam dunk" is foolish, IMO, because so many things can be put under that umbrella. It was created for obvious cases of discrimination, since as not giving some citizens a full vote, or allowing them to be the property of another human. The 14th Amendment arose out of the Reconstruction era. Saying it applies to marriage between gays, martians, or pederasts demeans the entire purpose of it.

I'm sure you're smarter than every attorney in the US, though, in thinking that it's a "slam dunk". I don't think the federal government should have any input on marriage, whatsoever at all. It's a state issue, and the 10th Amendment makes that obvious.

Oh, and you're not a Libertarian with this point of view. Furthest thing from it, actually.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

That's a very broad brush. Wouldn't the 14th also allow for a brother and sister to marry, or a father and daughter, or a grown man and a 12 year-old boy? Equal protection is a very broad brush, and thinking it's a "slam dunk" is foolish, IMO, because so many things can be put under that umbrella. It was created for obvious cases of discrimination, since as not giving some citizens a full vote, or allowing them to be the property of another human. The 14th Amendment arose out of the Reconstruction era. Saying it applies to marriage between gays, martians, or pederasts demeans the entire purpose of it.

I'm sure you're smarter than every attorney in the US, though, in thinking that it's a "slam dunk". I don't think the federal government should have any input on marriage, whatsoever at all. It's a state issue, and the 10th Amendment makes that obvious.

Oh, and you're not a Libertarian with this point of view. Furthest thing from it, actually.

I agree with this.

I would think this is a states rights issue. Whichever side loses, then the minority will parade it to the State Supreme Court and see what they say.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We've gone over this 14th ammendment fallacy. In Denny's world, there would be coed shower rooms at the local swimming pool.

 

[PapaG]

We've gone over this 14th ammendment fallacy. In Denny's world, there would be coed shower rooms at the local swimming pool.

Denny is the most phony "Libertarian" I've seen. I've never met a Libertarian who believes in federal rights over states' rights. Hell, I've rarely met a Libertarian who even believes in states' right, outside of roads and police.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

not to mention infinite detention as noted in the George Zimmerman case! :MARIS61:

 

[barfo]

Oh, and you're not a Libertarian with this point of view. Furthest thing from it, actually.

He's right, Denny. You've gone all the way over into Reasonable Human Being territory on this one.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

It's North Carolina.

Shouldn't they worry about their high rate of incest and inbreeding before worrying about "unions" that DON'T produce even more retarded North Carolinans?

 

[MARIS61]

We've gone over this 14th ammendment fallacy. In Denny's world, there would be coed shower rooms at the local swimming pool.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny is the most phony "Libertarian" I've seen. I've never met a Libertarian who believes in federal rights over states' rights. Hell, I've rarely met a Libertarian who even believes in states' right, outside of roads and police.

Libertarians believe the govt. should be according to the constitution. The 14th is the constitution, it's a great part of the constitution, and it simply trumps the 10th. I've never met a Libertarian who thinks the states should form their own army, navy, air force and marines, or that a state could tax the goods made by another, etc. Things that the constitution forbids.

Carry on.

 

[bluefrog]

It's North Carolina.

Shouldn't they worry about their high rate of incest and inbreeding before worrying about "unions" that DON'T produce even more retarded North Carolinans?

Ouch. Maris, I'm right here. Geez, have a little tact, man.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Shouldn't they worry about their high rate of incest and inbreeding before worrying about "unions" that DON'T produce even more retarded North Carolinans?

I presume you're talking about the working unions like AFL/CIO.

 

[PapaG]

Libertarians believe the govt. should be according to the constitution. The 14th is the constitution, it's a great part of the constitution, and it simply trumps the 10th. I've never met a Libertarian who thinks the states should form their own army, navy, air force and marines, or that a state could tax the goods made by another, etc. Things that the constitution forbids.

Carry on.

The 10th is part of the Constitution as well.

Derrr

 

[Denny Crane]

The 10th is part of the Constitution as well.

Derrr

What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" do you not understand?

 

[Eastoff]

What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" do you not understand?

duh 10 comes before 14, thus it doesn't count because!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

If it goes before a vote of the people, then let it pass of fail as the populace sees fit.

i agree with this, and am proposing we all vote on free ice cream sandwiches

 

[Eastoff]

“During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”

source

 

[PapaG]

What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" do you not understand?

Where does the 14th say anything about sexual preference? Does the 14th also require that poor people be paid the same as rich people?

You called it a "slam dunk", and quite obviously, it isn't. Unless you have some slam dunk evidence that nobody else has figured out in the legal community.

 

[PapaG]

duh 10 comes before 14, thus it doesn't count because!

I think the 10th applies. The "libertarian" thinks the 14th applies, but only if judges agree and apply it to sexual preference.

 

[PapaG]

Denny, why not put the entire 10th Amendment, instead of just the beginning?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Eastoff]

Denny, why not put the entire 10th Amendment, instead of just the beginning?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Doesn't that imply "Any rules not mentioned on the federal level are up to the states to decide." Thus if the 14th says you should have equal rights, then a state can't overrule that. Whether or not the 14th actually says gay marriage is protected is another issue.

 

[PapaG]

Doesn't that imply "Any rules not mentioned on the federal level are up to the states to decide." Thus if the 14th says you should have equal rights, then a state can't overrule that. Whether or not the 14th actually says gay marriage is protected is another issue.

How do you define "equal rights"? The 14th was set up during the Reconstruction era, in part, to force states to give blacks a full vote and equal opportunity. Even with that, it took decades of legal battles to decide this basic right. I mean, to me, that was a "slam dunk", and it basically took 100 years to finally become federal law.

I just found calling this Amendment One a "slam dunk" case based on the 14th to be very naive, that's all. Well, that, and I'm a big believer in states' rights over federal power.

 

[bluefrog]

BTW, same-sex marriage is already against the law in NC. Republicans think it's important enough that law needs to be enshrined in the state constitution.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

source

That's whack.

 

[PapaG]

BTW, same-sex marriage is already against the law in NC. Republicans think it's important enough that law needs to be enshrined in the state constitution.

Seems as if it's the citizens that will decide it, though. Such is life in a democracy. I'd just move.

 

[Eastoff]

That's whack.

My source is bad or her statement is whack?