NC Marriage Amendment

[Jerry Miah]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Why not? Its all about "Who do you love?"

Maybe we can dump the "Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem and adopt George Thorogoode's "Who do you love"!

Bo Diddley.

[coachkfan1]

I live here in NC and it is a great victory. To paraphrase the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King, it was defeated by "black men and white men, Jews and gentiles, protestants and Catholics"! I am so proud of my state right now!

[sw85]

Originally Posted by bellasbane

I don't claim to know what legal precedents have been established in North Carolina regarding the states recognition of heterosexual domestic partnerships and how this new amendment might affect them. The Mother Jones article I linked to says that most people in North Carolina weren't aware that this amendment could have such far reaching implications. I find that to be quite disturbing.

This is certainly a form of government imposed social engineering. Conservatives claim it will be good for marriage and families in the state. Well that is an empirical question - we don't need to rely on faith to figure out the answer.

Well, I deny that "non-social engineering" is even possible, so....

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

I've not seen anything anywhere that proposes the two scenarios you mention.

You realize his statement was future-tense, right? Therefore appealing to the present is naturally not going to yield anything?

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

We call that the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. This kind of logic was used to keep all sorts of people apart in the past.

There is no "slippery slope fallacy." Sometimes the slope really is slippery -- sometimes X really does lead to Y -- and when it is, pointing the fact out doesn't amount to committing a fallacy. There is a fallacy committed when X does not necessarily lead to Y, but it's a "non sequitur." When you people go around saying "marriage isn't procreative" that naturally opens up the point that, hey, if it's not procreative, there's no reason to (a) limit it to two people, (b) limit it to people who are unrelated, (c) limit it to people of the opposite sex, (d) limit it to people of the same species, etc. The whole reason why marriage, traditionally, has been limited to two unrelated people of the same species and opposite sex is because marriage was understood to be an essentially procreative institution. If you remove the predicate, the conclusions naturally fall away.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

We call that the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. This kind of logic was used to keep all sorts of people apart in the past.

Are you refering to slippery slope that the Mother Jones article tried to pass off?

Mother Jones' ran an article about the possible impact of Amendment 1 passing in North Carolina. I think the most significant concern is whether unmarried heterosexual couples will continue to be legally recognized with regard to a number of issues regarding domestic violence, child custody & support, end of life agreements, and health insurance benefits.

[He Man]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

I've not seen anything anywhere that proposes the two scenarios you mention.

Haven't see any that mention the ridiculous straws grasped at by Jerry Miah either.

So NC is maintaining the millenia-old status quo, and maintaining God's plan for the world.

Why am I not surprised some posters have a problem with that? (not referring to you Rich).

[He Man]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

We call that the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. This kind of logic was used to keep all sorts of people apart in the past.

You mean the one you used first when you brought race-relations into it?

A general forum rule for debating is "Try not to attack and unravel your own posts five posts later."

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by He Man

You mean the one you used first when you brought race-relations into it?

A general forum rule for debating is "Try not to attack and unravel your own posts five posts later."

[exnihilo]

Originally Posted by bellasbane

The Mother Jones article I linked to says that most people in North Carolina weren't aware that this amendment could have such far reaching implications. I find that to be quite disturbing.

The anti amendment group kept making the argument that the voters didn't understand the amendment and if they did they would not vote for it. In one sense they are right. The average person is woefully uninformed about most things he expresses an opinion on. The average citizen and voter fails basic tests of knowledge he should posses in order to make an informed political decision. But, that is true for all elections.

The last amendment we had was to prohibit felons from being elected sheriff. While many might think that a good idea I think a person should have a shot at redemption. If you believe in democracy then the people should be able to determine this on a case by case basis. That amendment was basically a repudiation of the whole democratic process, and it passed easily.

The bottom line is I personally try not to think about the awareness of the average voter because it frightens me to think what kind of power he has been given.

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Private agreements between unmarried couples might not longer have a legal basis. This means, for example, that if a couple who has cohabited and raised children together for years decides to separate, the wealthier partner would not be legally obligated to divide property with his or her partner. A contract is a contract, and where there is no clear contract, a court of equity will sort out the parties' respective contributions to property acquisition. No change there.

The law could interfere with unmarried partners' end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney.

The second part of the amendment reads:

This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

So as you point out the previously non-existing union rights are still non-existing. And, contrary to claims of the anti amendment supporters, the amendment actually has specific language to ensure private contracts, such as wills, power of attorney etc., are still valid.

Originally Posted by bellasbane

Ridgerunner - Thank you for responding to the issues raised in the article. If you don't mind me boiling it all down to a single point, it seems you believe the only impact this vote will have on North Carolina is to make it harder for the legislature to overturn the already existing law banning same-sex marriage in the state.

Is that correct?

I agree with @Ridgerunner's analysis. The amendment will keep the legislature from creating any new union, domestic partnership or gay 'marriage'. It will stall the state courts for a while until they can put on their unthinking caps and find a way to force gay marriage upon the people. The US Supreme Court can still invalidate the amendment. So this amendment changed nothing and only forestalls the inevitable, legal gay marriage.

Originally Posted by sw85

When you people go around saying "marriage isn't procreative" that naturally opens up the point that, hey, if it's not procreative, there's no reason to (a) limit it to two people, (b) limit it to people who are unrelated, (c) limit it to people of the opposite sex, (d) limit it to people of the same species, etc. The whole reason why marriage, traditionally, has been limited to two unrelated people of the same species and opposite sex is because marriage was understood to be an essentially procreative institution. If you remove the predicate, the conclusions naturally fall away.

Great comment. This amendment issue has made me fully appreciate the truth and necessity of the Catholic teachings of our sexual function. I realize that we got to gay marriage being a possibility by means of a progression based on flawed ideas we accepted in the past. Understanding this truth is essential to having a good reason to be against gay marriage. I don't want to say there is no reason to be against gay marriage without accepting these teachings, but it certainly makes holding that position more difficult.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by bellasbane

Ridgerunner - Thank you for responding to the issues raised in the article. If you don't mind me boiling it all down to a single point, it seems you believe the only impact this vote will have on North Carolina is to make it harder for the legislature to overturn the already existing law banning same-sex marriage in the state.

Is that correct?

Not quite my original point. Admitting as I did that I do not know the ins and outs of NC law, and was using my state as a likely comparator, I am saying this amendment has no demonstrated (or likely demonstrable) reduction in the rights of heterosexuals living together without benefit of marriage. Given the assumption that the state comparison is correct, the Mother Jones article's rather general conclusions are incorrect.

But, addressing your view of what I was saying, though it was not quite what I was saying, I will add this. Without having read whatever same sex marriage ban NC's legislature passed in the past, I will say that constitutional amendments are intended to prevent legislative or (more likely in this case) judicial contravention of the will of the people as expressed in the amendments.

[_Abyssinia]

U.S. Bishops Applaud Approval Of North Carolina Marriage Amendment In Face Of President Obama’s Recent Comments

Marriage protection essential to the common good, says Bishop Cordileone
Cites right of every child to be raised by mother and father
North Carolina is 30th state to protect marriage via constitutional amendment

The decision by the voters of North Carolina to define marriage in a constitutional amendment as the union of one man and one woman “affirms the authentic and timeless meaning of marriage,” said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, California. Bishop Cordileone, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), applauded the May 8 decision with Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Raleigh and Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte, North Carolina.

“The success of this amendment demonstrates people’s awareness of the essential role that marriage, as the union of a man and a woman, plays for the common good,” said Bishop Cordileone. “Despite his comments yesterday, I would hope that President Obama would recognize this essential role as well. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of justice, fairness and equality for the law to uphold every child’s basic right to be welcomed and raised by his or her mother and father together.”

He added, “I extend my gratitude to all of the people in North Carolina who worked tirelessly to make this a reality. The people of North Carolina join millions of other Americans in affirming the importance of marriage in our society.”

North Carolina is the 30th state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The statements of Bishop Burbidge is available online: www.dioceseofraleigh.org/news/view.aspx?id=1486

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-080.cfm

[PTL]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

Most troubling is seeing how many Christians, Catholics too, are against marriage. They have been telling us via Facebook that Jesus was for gay marriage.

To such a ridiculous lie, just ignore them. You simply cannot deal with liars. They will lie no matter what.

The only person on Facebook that was for marriage was a Southern Baptist. Of course I've always thought Facebook was evil and this just helps prove my case.

Time to make new friends.

[didymus]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

The Mother Jones article cites these adverse implications for unmarried heterosexual couples. I am commenting based on my state's laws, understanding (but doubting) that in might be different in NC:

■Unmarried parents could no longer have the same child custody and visitation rights as married parents. They don't now, and never have, but only in a formal sense. There are stronger presumptions when the parents are married to each other, but in court, the outcomes are not greatly different, depending on the facts. But the presumptions only relate to the parents, not the children.
■Private agreements between unmarried couples might not longer have a legal basis. This means, for example, that if a couple who has cohabited and raised children together for years decides to separate, the wealthier partner would not be legally obligated to divide property with his or her partner. A contract is a contract, and where there is no clear contract, a court of equity will sort out the parties' respective contributions to property acquisition. No change there.
■The law could interfere with unmarried partners' end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney. Again, no change. An unmarried heterosexual partner has no "marital right" to enforce against a will or trust. One might, however, make a claim against an estate or trust based on equitable contribution or "services". But that has always been true.
■Employers would no longer have to provide benefits, such as health insurance, to the partners of unmarried employees. They didn't before, either.

GOOD!!
First of all I doubt that Mother Jones' dire predictions will come true but if the do, that's a good thing. Extending the rights of marriage to people who are playing house is one of the factors that has helped destroy the institution.
Next we need to get rid of no-fault divorce. I know that would probably encounter opposition from "family values" polygamists like Newt and Rush.

[zz912]

Originally Posted by didymus

I know that would probably encounter opposition from "family values" polygamists like Newt and Rush.

Seems an unnecessary insult and jab, especially considering that you don't know if they would oppose, and secondly because Newt is a Catholic in good standing with the Church. So your polygamist attack seems like you are questioning the legitimacy of his bishop's authority over granting his annulment.

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by zz912

Seems an unnecessary insult and jab, especially considering that you don't know if they would oppose, and secondly because Newt is a Catholic in good standing with the Church. So your polygamist attack seems like you are questioning the legitimacy of his bishop's authority over granting his annulment.

Obviously, his jab was at "Newt," not at the Ordinary.

[didymus]

Originally Posted by zz912

Seems an unnecessary insult and jab, especially considering that you don't know if they would oppose, and secondly because Newt is a Catholic in good standing with the Church. So your polygamist attack seems like you are questioning the legitimacy of his bishop's authority over granting his annulment.

Okay, sorry. Please re-read my comment minus any names mentioned.

My overall point is that marriage is dead and it is straights who killed it, not some "gay agenda". Pre-marital sex, cohabitation, birth control, no-fault divorce, sodomy practiced among heteros -- all these were jack-hammering away at marriage for ages before the "gay marriage" movement even got started.

What to do?
Beats me. Maybe work on extracting the beam from our own eye first.