Amendment One (1 Viewer)

[Eastoff]

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

that's probably the "simplest" solution, but still not fair to the citizens it directly affects.

 

[PapaG]

that's probably the "simplest" solution, but still not fair to the citizens it directly affects.

Lots of things aren't fair. Affirmative action isn't fair, but some people live with it.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

The 14th applies to the States (state governments), not to private businesses or employers. It's also specific to the LAW of the states - "nor deny any Person equal protection of the LAWS."

The law in question is the marriage law of a state. Obviously it is a slam dunk.

By your logic, since the 14th doesn't say anything about race, a state could outlaw marriage between a chinese person and a vietnamese person.

 

[PapaG]

The 14th applies to the States (state governments), not to private businesses or employers. It's also specific to the LAW of the states - "nor deny any Person equal protection of the LAWS."

The law in question is the marriage law of a state. Obviously it is a slam dunk.

By your logic, since the 14th doesn't say anything about race, a state could outlaw marriage between a chinese person and a vietnamese person.

I'm just going by the actual court history of applying the 14th to something as simple and automatic (to me, anyhow) as suffrage for blacks, or basic equal rights based on race. 100 years, yet you think it's a "slam dunk" to apply it to sexual preference and marriage? You do realize that the reason the 14th applies to race is because of a long and arduous legal battle, right?

I found it to be a very naive and, frankly, ignorant comment, based on the long and difficult path other "slam dunks" have taken to have the 14th applied to them. Then again, you seem to think it's an easy win ... maybe you should try the case?

 

[PapaG]

States have barred homosexual marriage for decades, yet our resident legal expert now says it's a "slam dunk" 14th Amendment issue. I'm sure nobody's every thought of that one before!!

Embarrassing...

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm just going by the actual court history of applying the 14th to something as simple and automatic (to me, anyhow) as suffrage for blacks, or basic equal rights based on race. 100 years, yet you think it's a "slam dunk" to apply it to sexual preference and marriage? You do realize that the reason the 14th applies to race is because of a long and arduous legal battle, right?

I found it to be a very naive and, frankly, ignorant comment, based on the long and difficult path other "slam dunks" have taken to have the 14th applied to them. Then again, you seem to think it's an easy win ... maybe you should try the case?

And in 2000, the 14th equal protection clause applied to the recount ballots in Florida. The equal protection clause doesn't say a thing about race. You do have a point to make or what?

 

[Denny Crane]

States have barred homosexual marriage for decades, yet our resident legal expert now says it's a "slam dunk" 14th Amendment issue. I'm sure nobody's every thought of that one before!!

Embarrassing...

You are embarrassing yourself, but ... whatever.

 

[PapaG]

And in 2000, the 14th equal protection clause applied to the recount ballots in Florida. The equal protection clause doesn't say a thing about race. You do have a point to make or what?

The entire freaking point is that it didn't apply to race until the courts decided it applied to race, a process that took nearly 100 years.

 

[Denny Crane]

The entire freaking point is that it didn't apply to race until the courts decided it applied to race, a process that took nearly 100 years.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1981

Passed in 1870.

But you're the expert!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

My source is bad or her statement is whack?

What the guy said about the Caucasian race... That's just plain idiotic.

 

[Eastoff]

What the guy said about the Caucasian race... That's just plain idiotic.

wife* not guy

 

[PapaG]

What the guy said about the Caucasian race... That's just plain idiotic.

Yep. Hopefully idiotic enough to have the voters in North Carolina reject the amendment.

 

[crandc]

When can I vote on your marriage?

I would point out marriage equality is already illegal in NC, but the bigots want to make it super-illegal, so the legislature can't change their minds. The measure also removes any recognition from common law relationships, including hetero. Under similar laws in other states, battered women could no longer claim spousal abuse. Inheritance rights no longer applied to common law couples. Neither did child custody.

But I guess all that is just the eggs that need to be broken to make a bigot omelet.

Westnob, thanks for adding that link. I guess being bay also makes you Black?

 

[Eastoff]

When can I vote on your marriage?

I would point out marriage equality is already illegal in NC, but the bigots want to make it super-illegal, so the legislature can't change their minds. The measure also removes any recognition from common law relationships, including hetero. Under similar laws in other states, battered women could no longer claim spousal abuse. Inheritance rights no longer applied to common law couples. Neither did child custody.

But I guess all that is just the eggs that need to be broken to make a bigot omelet.

Westnob, thanks for adding that link. I guess being bay also makes you Black?

I'll assume bay wasn't a freudian slip about SF. ;]

What I want to see is a law that says everyone in NC can never get a divorce as well!

 

[bluefrog]

It passed by 61%

Same sex marriage was already illegal so nothing is changing there. Although straight couples in domestic partnerships or legal unions are no longer recongnized under this amendment... so sanctity of marriage preserved!

 

[PapaG]

When can I vote on your marriage?

I would point out marriage equality is already illegal in NC, but the bigots want to make it super-illegal, so the legislature can't change their minds. The measure also removes any recognition from common law relationships, including hetero. Under similar laws in other states, battered women could no longer claim spousal abuse. Inheritance rights no longer applied to common law couples. Neither did child custody.

But I guess all that is just the eggs that need to be broken to make a bigot omelet.

Westnob, thanks for adding that link. I guess being bay also makes you Black?

Crandc, you can always start an amendment, or even easier, a proposition process in CA banning hetero marriage. Gather enough signatures, get it on the ballot, and let the people decide.

The process is out there and easy enough to understand. Are you going to start it, or are you going to continue to accomplish nothing by whining on an internet forum? I'd love to see that on the CA ballot this fall. Get the ball rolling!

 

[PapaG]

It passed by 61%

Same sex marriage was already illegal so nothing is changing there. Although straight couples in domestic partnerships or legal unions are no longer recongnized under this amendment... so sanctity of marriage preserved!

Very disappointing. I remember when Measure 36 was on the ballot here in 2004. I voted against it, but it won with 57% of the vote. I still see people driving around with "One Man, One Woman - Yes on 36" bumper stickers.