North Carolina, regressive as ever

m-racer · Post by **m-racer** » May 10, 2012 8:24 AM

Nanajoth wrote:I don't have a problem with gay marriage, I just do not think it should be taught in schools.

Why is marriage of any kind "taught" in schools. How about some math?

m-racer · Post by **m-racer** » May 10, 2012 8:44 AM

rlomba8204 wrote:Couple of thoughts here:

1. First, w/r/t the breakdown of states by income and gay rights, that chart does little to explain why it is that in a number of wealthy states where this issues has come up for referendum it has lost. My sense is that (1) you can't take the NY Times seriously as a news source any longer (sorry but it's true) and (2) while there is likely greater acceptance of gays generally in more urban places that correlate with greater wealth, this doesn't necessarily translate into support for gay marriage per se as compared to a general sense of leaving people alone and having civil unions and arranging their lives as they see fit. Point is that from a genuine political science perspective -- parsing public opinion accurately, this is a difficult issue. The conflict between the referendum and the polls demonstrates it. It will be another close call in Maryland likely as well, and this is not a red state.

2. There is a lot of self congratulation here amongst those who support gay marriage. They are obviously enlightened, those in opposition fall into the category of bigoted. It is what it is but there is a distinction between "marriage" and allowing people to order their affairs without interference from the state. The significance of the "marriage" label is that there is a lot of data that shows 1 man / 1 woman is the ideal way to raise children. Anyone doubting the data just needs to look around them in society as to where there are problem communities -- broken families, typically one parent MIA. Children being raised improperly and in less than ideal conditions has, and will continue to have, huge implications for our society. The data speaks for itself. This is not to say that a gay couple cannot raise children appropriately -- but if we stop all the politically correct bullshit for a few minutes and are honest we will all acknowledge that it is a huge unknown with tremendous consequences if we get it wrong. Much the way single parenting has often turned out to be correlated with significantly greater problems with kids. None of this is to assail the morality or integrity of single parents or gay couples, but rather to point out, again, that there are huge consequences for getting this wrong and redefining marriage, and right now no one is talking about this. I am all for allowing consenting adults to order their affairs as they deem fit, but labels and legal consequences in this case have some serious consequences that people seem to be afraid to talk about because it is politically incorrect to do so.

3. The political geek in me always likes to take a look at county by county voting results. For the NC referendum those can be found here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com ... =425000010.

Pretty obvious that what I will call the "urban" or "university based" counties voted heavily (5:1) against the bill, and the remainder of the counties voted in favor by roughly a 2:1 margin. What is interesting to me to ask -- and is rhetorical only in nature as I know the answer pretty much given the tone of many of the replies in this thread -- I wonder if there is more tolerance in "anti gay marriage counties" for those who are proponents of gay marriage than there is at the university based counties for the opponents. If any of you have any doubt on this score, witness what happened to Paul Ryan recently vis a vis the Georgetown faculty. The faculty is entitled to its opinions but I was kind of surprised that they weren't well read enough to know that the doctrine isn't that specific. But then again, easy to make analytical mistakes when folks are wrapped up in self-righteousness. There's plenty here all around folks. Take a deep breath.

That was very interesting. I had not looked at the polling data for NC(don't care enough) but had assumed that was the case. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, personally, politically or regligiously (which is probably why I shouldn't post this). That said, let me give you an analog. I have lived next door to a couple (both women) in my little town in VA for 20 years. They are both Physicans. One is a retired Naval Doc. They have been together for 25 years and have raised three adopted children who are splendid kids (all out of college, 1 employed 1 in medical school and the other in law school). They are married in all the respects that matter.They are respected in the community. I would offer that they have created a family, not threatened anyone elses. Hard for me to argue that they shouldn't get the same rights as Kim Kardashian or Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley or any other of the vast number of people who think marriage is a lark. The problem with MIA parents, in my opinion, does not track to this issue. Just an opinion. I also feel very strongly that if government has a role here, it is to register marriages and keep records of them, not define who gets to participate and certainly not create a class of citizens who systematically get denied the rights of the majority (I kow you are not advocating that). I enjoy your perspective, but respectfully your statement about "if we get it wrong" troubles me as it assumes that "we" get to decide. That to me is a bigger issue that who marries whom. In my opinion, marriage and it's definition belongs in church, not in government and certainly not even all churches will agree. Just an opinion. This one will go on for a long time.

mooseheadm5 · Post by **mooseheadm5** » May 10, 2012 9:17 AM

m-racer wrote:That was very interesting. I had not looked at the polling data for NC(don't care enough) but had assumed that was the case. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, personally, politically or regligiously (which is probably why I shouldn't post this). That said, let me give you an analog. I have lived next door to a couple (both women) in my little town in VA for 20 years. They are both Physicans. One is a retired Naval Doc. They have been together for 25 years and have raised three adopted children who are splendid kids (all out of college, 1 employed 1 in medical school and the other in law school). They are married in all the respects that matter.They are respected in the community. I would offer that they have not created a family, not threatened anyone elses. Hard for me to argue that they shouldn't get the same rights as Kim Kardashian or Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley or any other of the vast number of people who think marriage is a lark. The problem with MIA parents, in my opinion, does not track to this issue. Just an opinion. I also feel very strongly that if government has a role here, it is to register marriages and keep records of them, not define who gets to participate and certainly not create a class of citizens who systematically get denied the rights of the majority (I kow you are not advocating that). Marriage and it's definition belongs in church, not in government.

This pretty much echoes what I was going to contribute. I know Ray is not what the pro gay rights name callers would call a bigot. I just happen to disagree with what he says here. Marriage is a dual institution. It is both civilly recognized and religiously recognized. If a particular religion wants to recognize marriages that are not legal in the eyes of the state, that is their prerogative. They are allowed to call it what they want, but the state doesn't offer the same rights because it goes against the state's laws. The state, however, can recognize marriages that go against religious laws all they want. Don't want to marry a Catholic to a Protestant? State doesn't care, the couple can still get married (of course it isn't like that any more, the Catholic church doesn't necessarily force folks to convert to be married, but they sure can make it difficult to use their church.) In this case, the marriage is a civil union. Now for all those that insist it isn't marriage unless you can call it marriage, I think they need to get over it. If the same benefits are offered to a couple as to a married couple, to me that ought to be good enough for now. The reason many people want recognition of unions specifically as marriage is the same reason that a typical man and woman want it- security. I feel that if that security is available through any union recognized by the state, that should be sufficient.

Now, the problem with the NC law is that it goes so far past outlawing gay marriage that it ends up being downright nasty. Not only can you not be married, you will never have any of the rights afforded to a state defined married couple unless you get that piece of paper. It is one thing to say "nope, you can't be married by our definition" and quite another to essentially discriminate against half of a couple because they don't have that piece of paper. The amendment even strips those privileges from man/woman couples that aren't married. It goes too far and was run through by playing on many peoples' fear and prejudice.

Here is a quote a friend of mine posted yesterday. He works for a title company, so he ends up doing a lot of work at the courthouse with the other records people.

Today at work, a young lady came in wanting to find out if she had been issued a marriage license. She did not know the name of the groom--nor did she know his age, where he was from, what kind of work he did, or anything else about him. She met the guy at the MALL and remembers a ceremony with some kind of minister. She thinks. Not sure, because she was really, really drunk the entire time. Apparently the last time she saw him was when this was, ahem, consummated immediately afterwards. The only reason she was looking for the license was so she could find out if she was really married to this mystery guy, because if she WASN'T she had someone else lined up!!

Meanwhile, there are actually people who think allowing loving gay couples to marry will somehow debase the institution of marriage.

Again, I don't understand why giving rights to couples that actually give a damn and want to be together is such a horrible thing. If it is against your religion, I would like to point out that chances are you do things that are against your religion every day, yet others don't feel the need to pass constitutional amendments against it, because your religion is not the law. Our law is founded on basic Judeo-Christian norms, but our laws are not governed by the Bible or any other religious book. That would be a theocracy, which is the very same thing we fight against in other countries.

rlomba8204 · Post by **rlomba8204** » May 10, 2012 9:34 AM

Guys, I don't really disagree with much of what has been posted above by Tim and Moose. The thing is, bear in mind, we limit who can get married all the time. I can't have multiple wives. (Nor would any man in his right mind want multiple wives.) We don't let certain family relations marry (outside of select counties in Alabama, PA, and Indiana). The implication is we use the legal institution of marriage to shape our society as we choose to order it. (I agree NC's approach here seems over the top -- my comments above should be construed to be about this issue generally, not this particular NC statute.) Question here, and it is difficult, how the people use that power in a manner that is respectful and appropriate given the competing interests.

And as far as single parents go, my point there was simply that I think there is something to be said about being careful about disturbing the basic institution of marriage -- the unit of having kids and raising families -- with what are no doubt well intentioned programs and policies that have, in practice in a different context -- social welfare, etc. -- led to wholesale destruction of the family unit in certain communities. This is not news -- Moynihan was writing about this stuff 25 years ago or more. So yes, it is not dispositive with respect to the issue of what "gay marriage" will do to how marriage works in society but to me it is a warning, a caution that we shouldn't mess with fundamental societal building blocks -- fundamental to society, not in a religious sense -- lightly or casually. It may actually be, and this is my own sense but I have no data on which to base it, that expanding the concept of marriage to include homosexuals may in fact provide another stable social unit for raising children. Certainly there is something to be said for the idea that with kids two people have a better chance than one. Point is that I don't have any data on this -- none of us do, and at risk of being repetitive this is a fundamental societal institution. Caution is warranted. And to point about casual marriage -- it is totally valid -- it in mind simply reinforces the point that marriage is a key social building block and thus is must be taken seriously and respected, not because my priest tells me so (although that may be a valid reason to ME), but because it has such a large impact on society.

That is all a long way of saying that to a large degree I don't really have strong feelings here in terms of preventing people from doing what they want to do under the law -- just last week my wife and I were congratulating some friends who have been a couple for almost 30 years so it's not that I am not sensitive to the issue or somehow "into" preventing people, consenting adults in this case, from ordering private affairs.

Problem is the nature of this debate -- and some of the exchanges here exemplify it -- is that given the importance of the institution to society it needs to be respectful and thoughtful, not a clash of juveniles with soundbites and slogans. This is important to get right. Right now, the tenor of the national conversation on this and other social issues is such that I have really no hope that the issue can be resolved in a thougtful manner. Again, much of this three page thread is Exhibit A to that fact.

And none of that, btw, is from a religious bent, or at least not that's my intent. It is from a practical perspective that how we order our personal lives, while undoubtedly personal, has societal implications. Churches and religion can characterize marriage however they so choose, but this debate is about what we do under the law because the law has obvious impacts on society.

Kyle in NO · Post by **Kyle in NO** » May 10, 2012 9:35 AM

FastFiver wrote:Kyle, what a Dick you are.

This is true, thank you.

Kyle - Proudly Bigoted Against Liberals TM

Mark in Toronto · Post by **Mark in Toronto** » May 10, 2012 9:48 AM

Kyle in NO wrote:The USA will be facing collapse in 20-40 years if we don't change our current protocol, likely much sooner. Anyone who wants more progressive ideas implemented at this point is a fucking fool.

Kyle in NO · Post by **Kyle in NO** » May 10, 2012 9:59 AM

Brian in TN · Post by **Brian in TN** » May 10, 2012 10:25 AM

Did you know that the cafe here at work serves ice coffee? AND its free. mmmhmmm.

Sipping the fine java and reading what Dr Tam and SpeederCinco'er have to say.

shagrath · Post by **shagrath** » May 10, 2012 11:42 AM

Brian in TN wrote:Did you know that the cafe here at work serves ice coffee? AND its free. mmmhmmm.

Sipping the fine java and reading what Dr Tam and SpeederCinco'er have to say.

a · Post by a » May 10, 2012 5:30 PM

Kid-wise, 2 parents is better than 1 parent. Straight or not.

Tammer in Philly · Post by **Tammer in Philly** » May 10, 2012 9:23 PM

You seem to take as a premise that denying rights to some citizens is acceptable and should be tolerated.

-tammer

rlomba8204 wrote:Couple of thoughts here:

1. First, w/r/t the breakdown of states by income and gay rights, that chart does little to explain why it is that in a number of wealthy states where this issues has come up for referendum it has lost. My sense is that (1) you can't take the NY Times seriously as a news source any longer (sorry but it's true) and (2) while there is likely greater acceptance of gays generally in more urban places that correlate with greater wealth, this doesn't necessarily translate into support for gay marriage per se as compared to a general sense of leaving people alone and having civil unions and arranging their lives as they see fit. Point is that from a genuine political science perspective -- parsing public opinion accurately, this is a difficult issue. The conflict between the referendum and the polls demonstrates it. It will be another close call in Maryland likely as well, and this is not a red state.

2. There is a lot of self congratulation here amongst those who support gay marriage. They are obviously enlightened, those in opposition fall into the category of bigoted. It is what it is but there is a distinction between "marriage" and allowing people to order their affairs without interference from the state. The significance of the "marriage" label is that there is a lot of data that shows 1 man / 1 woman is the ideal way to raise children. Anyone doubting the data just needs to look around them in society as to where there are problem communities -- broken families, typically one parent MIA. Children being raised improperly and in less than ideal conditions has, and will continue to have, huge implications for our society. The data speaks for itself. This is not to say that a gay couple cannot raise children appropriately -- but if we stop all the politically correct bullshit for a few minutes and are honest we will all acknowledge that it is a huge unknown with tremendous consequences if we get it wrong. Much the way single parenting has often turned out to be correlated with significantly greater problems with kids. None of this is to assail the morality or integrity of single parents or gay couples, but rather to point out, again, that there are huge consequences for getting this wrong and redefining marriage, and right now no one is talking about this. I am all for allowing consenting adults to order their affairs as they deem fit, but labels and legal consequences in this case have some serious consequences that people seem to be afraid to talk about because it is politically incorrect to do so.

3. The political geek in me always likes to take a look at county by county voting results. For the NC referendum those can be found here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com ... =425000010.

Pretty obvious that what I will call the "urban" or "university based" counties voted heavily (5:1) against the bill, and the remainder of the counties voted in favor by roughly a 2:1 margin. What is interesting to me to ask -- and is rhetorical only in nature as I know the answer pretty much given the tone of many of the replies in this thread -- I wonder if there is more tolerance in "anti gay marriage counties" for those who are proponents of gay marriage than there is at the university based counties for the opponents. If any of you have any doubt on this score, witness what happened to Paul Ryan recently vis a vis the Georgetown faculty. The faculty is entitled to its opinions but I was kind of surprised that they weren't well read enough to know that the doctrine isn't that specific. But then again, easy to make analytical mistakes when folks are wrapped up in self-righteousness. There's plenty here all around folks. Take a deep breath.

Tammer in Philly · Post by **Tammer in Philly** » May 10, 2012 9:30 PM

shagrath wrote:
Brian in TN wrote:Did you know that the cafe here at work serves ice coffee? AND its free. mmmhmmm.

Sipping the fine java and reading what Dr Tam and SpeederCinco'er have to say.
:blah:
:hysterical:

The total thought input in both quoted posts is zero. About what I expect.

-tammer

oldskool · Post by **oldskool** » May 10, 2012 9:50 PM

The leftists eat ass. . . is that better?

rlomba8204 · Post by **rlomba8204** » May 10, 2012 9:52 PM

Tammer in Philly wrote:You seem to take as a premise that denying rights to some citizens is acceptable and should be tolerated.

Not at all, but given the tone of what you have written -- an obvious cheap shot -- I am not going to reply further.

Tammer in Philly · Post by **Tammer in Philly** » May 10, 2012 9:59 PM

rlomba8204 wrote:
Tammer in Philly wrote:You seem to take as a premise that denying rights to some citizens is acceptable and should be tolerated.
Not at all, but given the tone of what you have written -- an obvious cheap shot -- I am not going to reply further.

While all of your responses are well-written and thoughtful, they all fail a simple test. Replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage" and tell me how things change.

Polygamy and sibling marriage aren't analogous, for different reasons. The latter because it's a public health risk; the former because it automatically subjugates women (I think this is circumstantial and due to the beliefs of specific polygamous populations we had).

At any rate, there is no ethical basis for excluding any two unrelated consenting adults from having a relationship. If that is the case, then there is no ethical basis for banning any such relationship from becoming a marriage.

Hell, I can't find a good ethical argument for banning polygamy, so long as it's equally legal for one woman to have many husbands (can you imagine the insecurities those guys would have)?

It has, of course, been made abundantly clear through many examples that there is no valid Christian reason for banning gay marriage unless many other mundane acts are banned and many horrible ones mandated.

-tammer

rlomba8204 · Post by **rlomba8204** » May 10, 2012 10:22 PM

My religion has nothing to do with this. The arguments are practically based here - caution primarily. I don't believe I have raised religion here as any sort of reason to support what I am saying. You are approaching the issue from solely a rights-driven perspective. That is a mistake, with all respect. Start by reading "Rights Talk" by Mary Ann Glendon and them you will understand my position that defining everything in terms of the absolute rights of an individual impoverishes political discourse and makes compromise impossible. It is an old book now, widely available, and you will have a better sense of why I think all of these sorts of issues, whether it be marriage, abortion, or any other hot button social issue, are impossible to resolve civilly when everyone is simply focused on "my rights.". No one sensible is saying we should rouund up gays and put them in camps, or that we should not try to avoid interfering with private relationships. The issue, at risk of repetition, is that the family is a fundamental building block of society and so my approach would be to proceed cautiously / incrementally. Your approach is dictated by your premise - the issue is resolved as soon as it is phrased, without regard to the greater societal concern about the appropriate vehicle in which to rear children. None of that is to say a gay couple cannot do a great job raising kids, I have said this already. But this is not an area where we can casually experiment without considering whether we are harming the rearing of the next generation. You and I may "feel" that it will work out fine. It could and I am fine with that. But it may not, as we found out and continue to learn with respect to much of the well intentioned social safety network that has been accompanied by a complete breakdown in families in the inner cities and other disadvantaged areas. None of this is religious. It is social science / policy driven. And I have the humility to admit that I simply don't know how it will shake out, so given the importance of the institution, an incremental approach that allows us to see what is happening is the most prudent policy approach here. Because you answer the question by defining it solely as a rights issue, you don't allow such circumspection. I think that is a mistake.

Finally, disabuse yourself of the notion that rights are absolute and aren't conditioned all the time. We already limit all sorts of institutions, including ones regarding consenting adults, because we think the effects are detrimental to society as a whole. I made this point above. You cannot marry your sister or have four wives, for instance. The debate here, one people of your view are looking to circumvent, is simply another discussion about whether and what extent society should condition rights of another group of people. The funny thing is that as a practical matter I am probably not that far off from where you are, but I get angry at the childish insults and obsession with self that has led to the total evisceration of any policy debates by virtue of the fact that a "right" is involved. Read the book. You will enjoy it.

Final thought: I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea, implicit or explicit, that those of us who have reservations about proceeding down the gay marriage road full speed are somehow judging others. If there is any ambiguity on ths score I want to be clear: I am not standing in judgment of anyone and it would be wholly inappropriate for me to do so. I am even uncomfortable casually stating things like "we limit or condition rights. . . .". But yet, because the issue is so important in terms of having a productive next generation, these things have to be discussed, respectfully but out in the open.

C.R. Krieger · Post by **C.R. Krieger** » May 10, 2012 10:33 PM

Y'know, I think we could get around all this quasi-religious BS if we simply offered certain rights and privileges to civil unions and recognized religious marriages as a subset of those unions.

L_N_Love · Post by **L_N_Love** » May 10, 2012 10:40 PM

After the gay rights thing is resolved, what do you think will be next?

alijonny · Post by **alijonny** » May 10, 2012 10:42 PM

L_N_Love wrote:After the gay rights thing is resolved, what do you think will be next?

Legalizing Mary Jane?

rlomba8204 · Post by **rlomba8204** » May 10, 2012 10:59 PM

C.R. Krieger wrote:Y'know, I think we could get around all this quasi-religious BS if we simply offered certain rights and privileges to civil unions and recognized religious marriages as a subset of those unions.

I am OK with this. I am even OK with the marriage label if we don't short circuit the slow but well proven process of democratic consensus building.

mooseheadm5 · Post by **mooseheadm5** » May 10, 2012 11:07 PM

I understand what you are saying, Ray, but I still disagree. The family as a building block is largely an idealized version of reality as it was. Marriage has, in the past, been used to align families for wealth and power as a building block of old societies and often had nothing to do with love or the building of a caring family unit. It was simply a means to a end for many. Women were married off and traded as property. It is only in recent history that this has changed in the Western world. To say that your definition of marriage is the foundation of our society is looking at things through rose colored spectacles. Pretty much only after the early 1900s were women beginning to have control of their destiny w/r/t marriage, and only then did it start to become what it is today as an institution. This is not to say that people who were essentially forced to marry did not grow to love each other or provide a stable and loving family for their offspring, but this does not fit with the prosaic view pitched by the sitcoms of the 50s.

That said, I do agree that it may not necessarily be the right time to push this issue to the forefront. This is not the type of dire civil rights emergency that was faced by minorities in the 60s. However, the issue of trying to get gay marriage legalized was not pushed to the forefront by the pro side. As much as they want it to happen, they know generally how to pick their battles. It was thrown into the spotlight as a wedge issue by people that wanted to play on the fears and prejudices (note that the wording I use is not necessarily derogatory, as those who toss the word bigot around) of the voters to get them to the polls. The people pushing it onto the ballots may or may not be horrible assholes, but they are definitely trying to get people to the polls. As such, the slow and steady approach now has taken a back seat to a knock down drag out over the issue. Because peoples' rights are potentially being trampled by bad legislation, they will fight back vocally tooth and nail. They didn't pick the battle, it was chosen for them. Because of the far right pushing the issue, now is the time for the battle- it is too late to gradually let things take their course.

Son of a · Post by **Son of a** » May 10, 2012 11:29 PM

rlomba8204 wrote:
C.R. Krieger wrote:Y'know, I think we could get around all this quasi-religious BS if we simply offered certain rights and privileges to civil unions and recognized religious marriages as a subset of those unions.
I am OK with this. I am even OK with the marriage label if we don't short circuit the slow but well proven process of democratic consensus building.

I do not want to start trouble, but my fellow (and older) JDs are proving my point about demographics. "Separate but equal." Ring a bell?

I realize that 2012 for "gay" marriage equates to about 1960 for "interracial" marriage, but the proposed solution shouldn't be the same. Granted, there are ways to couch the language and make it "equivalent," but the very acts of semantics required to achieve that, also ultimately show just how not equal it would be.

If you are not issuing the same marriage license to every consenting pair of adults who is not otherwise barred from marrying, regardless of gender, you are effectively discriminating against them. Marriage is obviously tied into many aspects of society, culture, religion, and history. Its very ubiquity and omnipresence makes it hard to see just how multi-faceted it is. But when it comes down to it legally, it is much less complicated.

It is a contract entered into by two adults and it conveys certain rights, responsibilities, and yes, privileges. In the modern US Constitutional law sphere as it exists today, and as it has been progressing ever-so-slowly since the mid-1950's, it is getting harder and harder to legally carve out a path by which any consenting adult is barred from entering into a private legal contract with another person, on the basis of anything tied to sexual identity or preference.

Argue if you must, but it might as well be the serenade played by the Titanic's band. The ship is sunk, its just that some haven't realized it, and the rest think it can't possibly be happening.

turbodan · Post by **turbodan** » May 11, 2012 12:02 AM

This comparison to segregation to bolster the argument for discrimination is weak. Segregation was a matter of denying actual rights in some cases. Separate but equal was usually not. Unless you think everyone has a right to get married to whichever sex they want thats a big crock of shit. And marriage isn't a right.

Is there a place in the country where a homosexual couple can't legally live together? Honest question. I'm pretty sure I know the answer. It seems to me this is a big deal over a small minority of the population that feels oppressed and discriminated against a whole lot more than they really are. They might not be happy with themselves or their lives for any number of reasons completely unrelated to their marital status and are projecting those feelings against this issue. The left has picked this up and run with it as something to weild against traditional conservatives and as a sideshow distraction to all of the very real, serious problems they have no answers for.

The politics of it really disgusts me.

mooseheadm5 · Post by **mooseheadm5** » May 11, 2012 12:19 AM

Homosexual sex was illegal in many states till 2003.

The far right made it the wedge issue in 2004 and has continued to do so. The far right continues to place these things on the ballot, not the far left, so who is distracting whom?

alijonny · Post by **alijonny** » May 11, 2012 12:24 AM

Blah blah blah blah bullshit bullshit...religion, ...er, likely homo etc...

Because no one will read this because they are

I like women. And god. Even though you may think my god is different than yours....I let god judge. I just drive the bmw's. Don't kill the BMW driver.

Cactus.

turbodan · Post by **turbodan** » May 11, 2012 12:33 AM

So how is that enforced? Its a meaningless law.

What do you mean by the far right? Who specifically? When a majority of voters in North Carolina votes for and passes a law like this one, how do you figure its the far right?

That statement implies that there is a fringe group out on the super conservative edge of American politics somehow controlling the discourse. Do you think the "far right" is behind the current discussion on gay marriage? What about the previous discussion about womens new right to have me pay for their birth control? What about the discussion about stand your ground laws and gun laws in this country?

The last thing liberals want to talk about is the economy. Gay marriage is the current distraction. Dems are simply using that until the next thing comes along.

At this point I'd like to see it legalized. Not because I agree with it or want to simply give in every time a small minority of Americans begins hyperventilating and stomping their feet about a new right, but because we have legitimately much more serious issues to deal with. Lets do that and lets legalize drugs. All of them. Now what are we going to outraged about?

mooseheadm5 · Post by **mooseheadm5** » May 11, 2012 12:52 AM

I didn't say only the far right voted for it. I said the far right pushed the issue and got it on the ballots in multiple states. Who came up with the idea of putting the issue up for a vote, the dems? Nope. The gays? Nope. The moderate conservatives who care more about fixing the economy than what two people do with their lives? Nope.

Tammer in Philly · Post by **Tammer in Philly** » May 11, 2012 2:19 AM

rlomba8204 wrote:
C.R. Krieger wrote:Y'know, I think we could get around all this quasi-religious BS if we simply offered certain rights and privileges to civil unions and recognized religious marriages as a subset of those unions.
I am OK with this. I am even OK with the marriage label if we don't short circuit the slow but well proven process of democratic consensus building.

Fine, let's take your statement regarding data that shows "1 man/1 woman" is the ideal for raising kids. Are there statistically viable samples of 2 men or 2 women? Is this only in comparison to single-family homes? I guess I would look for any evidence that children raised by gay couples (adopted or by artificial insemination or by surrogacy, where in the latter two instances one of the gay partners is a biological parent) are somehow disadvantaged.

Got any statistically significant evidence for that? Here's a solitary data point against it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... MLZO-sObzQ but I'm sure there will be many more. Remember, gay couples in most of the country can't legally adopt, and where they can it's relatively recent.

Regarding Maryland, there are significant African American populations in the urban centers that are also strongly anti-gay. Anti-gay sentiment doesn't correlate to red/blue as much as it correlates to religious/non-religious (which is what was implied by the graph I posted), and uneducated/educated:

People like Dan think that colleges are heavily pushing some liberal brainwashing. It's more likely, of course, that education and rational thought highlight bigotry for what it is.

-tammer

Tammer in Philly · Post by **Tammer in Philly** » May 11, 2012 2:31 AM

turbodan wrote:This comparison to segregation to bolster the argument for discrimination is weak. Segregation was a matter of denying actual rights in some cases. Separate but equal was usually not. Unless you think everyone has a right to get married to whichever sex they want thats a big crock of shit. And marriage isn't a right.

Actually, that's incorrect. Marriage is a legal right granted to a subset of adults. As a legal institution, it confers its own set of rights and responsibilities (which is why it takes another legal proceeding to undo it). Denying that right to certain individuals is discriminatory, and it is the exact same level of discrimination as not allowing blacks to vote.

Is there a place in the country where a homosexual couple can't legally live together? Honest question. I'm pretty sure I know the answer. It seems to me this is a big deal over a small minority of the population that feels oppressed and discriminated against a whole lot more than they really are. They might not be happy with themselves or their lives for any number of reasons completely unrelated to their marital status and are projecting those feelings against this issue. The left has picked this up and run with it as something to weild against traditional conservatives and as a sideshow distraction to all of the very real, serious problems they have no answers for.

The politics of it really disgusts me.

You are so stupid it hurts. Are you really so incapable of imagining the situation of someone who isn't your clone that you can't come up with this situation? Committed gay couple, lives together, owns property together, maybe even adopts child. One gets cancer, or dies in a car wreck. If they didn't have very explicit wills, the other has no right to visitation, power of attorney, financial information, health records. These are specific rights being denied to people because of their sexual orientation, which isn't different from denying specific rights to people due to their skin color or gender.

And Ray, while I'm at it, I'm sorry but it IS a black and white issue. You don't get to choose who gets a family and who doesn't. You don't have to like that there are single parents or gay parents or alcoholic parents or drugged-out parents or short parents or Irish parents or whatever. If any fuckup, like say Dan Leahy, has the right to marry and procreate and raise children just because he's straight, then there is no reason to deny any other adult the right to marry and raise children. Let's imagine a gay man fathers a child with a woman, like Larry Craig did. Then he takes his child and lives with a gay partner, which Larry Craig didn't do (instead he went trolling for sex in an airport bathroom while publicly bashing gays such as himself). This is a man raising his own child with a person he loves, much like you raise your child with the person you love. The only practical difference is that if something ill should befall you, your family won't be torn apart because your lawful wedded wife has full parental rights. If your child were the product of an out-of-wedlock encounter or an earlier marriage, your lawful wedded wife could adopt said child and retain full legal rights in the event of your unfortunate demise. Why should any analogous family not share those rights? What does society gain by removing support systems from children who lose a parent? That punishes those kids for having a gay parent.

It's all so stupid and short-sighted that it dumbfounds me.

In 20 years, people like Dan are going to be the Strom Thurmonds of our day, except Strom Thurmond got a lot of tail and was interesting, while Dan is just a sad bigot living in a pool of hatred that is probably rooted in his own self-loathing.

-tammer

Tammer in Philly · Post by **Tammer in Philly** » May 11, 2012 2:35 AM

turbodan wrote: What do you mean by the far right? Who specifically? When a majority of voters in North Carolina votes for and passes a law like this one, how do you figure its the far right?

That statement implies that there is a fringe group out on the super conservative edge of American politics somehow controlling the discourse. Do you think the "far right" is behind the current discussion on gay marriage? What about the previous discussion about womens new right to have me pay for their birth control? What about the discussion about stand your ground laws and gun laws in this country?

Fringe group? No, just very wealthy people with their own interests in mind. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... fact_mayer Oh hey look, it's about North Carolina!

Those people may or may not be religious zealots, but they've realized that said zealots are an easily manipulated lot who can be made to vote against their interests economically if they feel they are satisfying some religious calling. Hear that, Stikrz? That's you in a nutshell.

Oh, and Dan, I agree about the drug legalization. We should follow the Netherlands model. Would take the cash wind out of the Zeta sails, too.

-tammer

MyE28.com

MyE28.com

North Carolina, regressive as ever