Hey, NC - Please Vote!

[Morrison_Lad]

I might be thinking of a different law, but I believe the Equal Protection Clause is used a lot these days in that if one state recognizes a marriage, the other states HAVE to recognize it. Not that they have to adopt the same marriage laws, but it's what allows you to cross a state border, get married there, and still be counted as married when you re-enter the original state.

That's the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.[2] At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision,[3] although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted differently.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause

[ZimMan2]

I confess to knowing very little about the American constitution, but isn't there something in there about not abridging the rights of its citizens? And something about liberty and justice for all, not just straight bigots?

I'm sure there's something about it in the constituion, but what most people cite is the Declaration of Independence. Which reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also, I'd be curious how many NC citizens are aware of this:
http://www.sodomy.org/laws/northcaro...rnication.html

If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other.

[Morrison_Lad]

Oh, and concerning the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as it concerns family law and the sort:

The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, same-sex marriage is legal in several states and the District of Columbia. In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state.[18] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.[19]

So, when two appeals courts decide differently on the same matter, the Supreme Court needs to step in and settle it one way or another.

Again, I'm not familiar with either of these cases beyond the basics, so can't really add much more that that.

[KalenO]

At this point, all I want to know is when I get to vote on straight peoples' right to marry. That's all I want to know! I mean, cuz, since apparently tyranny of the majority is absolutely not a thing, that vote should be coming up any day now, right?

Oh, and dear supporters of the amendment who are handing out WEDDING CAKE at their 'victory parties'....can we FINALLY stop pretending this is about defending your religious beliefs or anything other than just being bigoted asshole douchebags, the end?

[bert]

From the comments section on CNN.

I really liked this post:

Top 10 reasons against gay marriage.


1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.


2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way hanging around tall people will make you tall.


3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.


4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.


5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spear's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be DESTROYED!


6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile coupls, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanges aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.


7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.


Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.


9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.


10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

too bad it will be COMPLETELY over the heads of the bigots and ultra-religious sheep who voted for this.

[Karen El]

I get the impression there are a lot of right wing types who believe #8.

Funny to think of how America got started on opposing religious intolerance.

[SidekicksRevenge]

My state. I honestly tried. Phone banked, campaigned, donated...just wasn't enough. My state caused a lot of pain to a lot of my friends who know more about being a good Christian than all of the bigots who voted for this shit combined.

I have now vented.

[KalenO]

I get the impression there are a lot of right wing types who believe #8.

Funny to think of how America got started on opposing religious intolerance.

Yup, this is exactly the problem. I had a conversation with a former friend about this once, a very religious woman capable of rational discussion and debate, and ultimately it boiled down to this: She absolutely recognized that she had no legal basis or reasons for voting against gay marriage, and her decision was motivated by religion....but that didn't stop her from doing so, because she viewed herself as a Christian BEFORE an American, and prioritized her interpretation of God's Law over man's. Which, you know, didn't work for me at all and is a large part of why we parted ways, but that was her reasoning at the end of the day, and she's not alone.

The problem is....how do you even begin to argue with that?

[SidekicksRevenge]

The problem is....how do you even begin to argue with that?

You start with "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and hope it goes well from there...

[Linkara]

And as a Christian, I would point out all the stuff that seems to be "God's Law" that is considered ridiculous and stupid. Shellfish, slavery, wearing clothes of different threads, getting menstrual blood on sheets... all the fun stuff that the Bible says.

Or point out the Bible's mistranslations and erroneous language, or just the language that's up to interpretation.

As a Christian, I love that God gave us all the gift of intelligence. It's a pity so few people take advantage of that gift.