Marriage Amendment vote today in NC

[TrainTrac]

Bill V,



When Redfish first cited his example, he didn't clarify whether the funds were from an insurance policy, pension plan, or whatever. So assuming that this is related to a pension, then I'd agree with you that no money would be paid to a non-spouse, since most retirement/pension plans in most states traditionally are designed for married couples.



As for an insurance policy, in many cases (not all), the beneficiary can be whomever one chooses to name. Not necessarily a spouse, or even a next-of-kin relative. Doesn't even have to be another person in lots of cases.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



So,if another state passed a law that allowed for the killing of red-headed newborns then you wouldn't feel the right nor the need to complain about it?



It is my experience that people like to claim to be tolerant, until they find something they can't tolerate.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Funny, and appropriate:



[Broken External Image]:

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR



I think I would exercise my Right to demand a repeal of the law based on the fact that it is a violation of Federal and Common Law. Not as the vote on the NC Law. Being bald I would much rather they pass a law that require all new Babies heads be shaved. I have little tolerance for individuals with hair. Other than nose hair that I seem to now have an abundance of.

It is my experience that people like to claim to be tolerant, until they find something they can't tolerate.

I bow to your vast experience in tolerance. If you deem me tolerant you have that Right. Thanks that one name I have never been called.

 

[Bill V]

TrainTrac, yeah, I think we're on basically the same page. Some insurance policies don't have "self-designated" beneficiaries, especially if they're group policies. But otherwise, you're right on that point.

 

[Gene Zenk]

Being a gay man, and committed to my partner of over 5 years, it is nice to see support from several on the boards here. Heck, even apathy and not caring either way can be comforting in a strange way. Unfortunately for us, we live in a state that doesn't recognize our relationship regardless if we were married in another state.



Yes, some of us gays own a ST - hopefully that fact doesn't somehow diminish the value of your ST or your ownership experience.



Frankly, the love I share with my partner affects no one but us, our family, and our friends. It in no way diminishes the value of anyone else's marriage. It seems like many people are able to ruin their own heterosexual marriages regardless of what happens in my life.



Many focus on the religious aspect of marriage. Does your church issue marriage licenses or does the government? Yes, a church often performs a marriage ceremony but is the marriage performed by a local judge any less meaningful than the one performed by a church? No one is saying that all churches need to recognize or perform a same sex marriage. Some churches do, some don't. The decision is left to each church.



However, in the end, the state issued the marriage license regardless of the couple's religion. One of the founding principals of this country was the separation of church and state. One of the state/country's most basic duties is to protect the equal rights of all citizens.



Other people argue that homosexuality isn't natural. How can it not be natural? I didn't choose to be gay. Who in their right mind would choose to be gay and subjected to the name calling, bullying, hate and other terrible things that gays face? It's true that we can't reproduce. Big deal. I know several heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce. I can however, provide a loving, nurturing and stable home for a child whose heterosexual parents failed.



I want to thank several of you for the support. For those that don't care one way or the other, please continue to spread your apathy and help others see that gay marriage really doesn't affect your own relationship. For those of you that are opposed to gay marriage, please understand that my life and relationship will never affect your own life or relationship in a negative way. I would prefer that you put efforts into something constructive and actually bettering someone else's life by donating or volunteering at a homeless shelter or battered women's center than trying to keep my partner and I from living a fulfilling and happy life.

 

[H D]

Great post Gene. I don't agree with everything in your post but it's petty details and relatively unimportant to the matter as I see it.



I am honestly surprised this hasn't been to the Supreme Court yet. I see no way a ban would pass as constitutional in the courts. Absolutely zero chance it's constitutional.



It's interesting when Americans prefer to be democratic and when they prefer to be a republic.

 

[Bo Loo]

Quote Gene,

" For those of you that are opposed to gay marriage, please understand that my life and relationship will never affect your own life or relationship in a negative way. I would prefer that you put efforts into something constructive"

Well said. I congratulate NC on being crime free and having 0% unemployment. This gives them the luxury of having time to tackle more important issues that are destroying the lives of all the straight citizens.

 

[Bill V]

Here's an interesting article about the start of the backlash against the state...

 

[Jacob Dryer]

Interesting graphic..

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JD, yep...more educated people are generally for gay rights, less educated people generally against them.



Similar to smoking. Less educated people on average tend to smoke more, more educated tend to smoke less.

 

[Doctor CAD]

I hope all of you realize that the NC amendment has exactly ZERO to do with RIGHTS, gay or otherwise. NC law already stipulates in the state that the only recognized marriage is man and woman. Nothing about that will change. No "rights" were deleted or created.



Basically, we voted to have another redundant and totally unnecessary group of words added to our body of laws. Stupid. Its like adding that robbery is not a legitimate business to our constitution.



It was a crock and a total waste of time, money and most of all, the airwaves for the past 3 months.

 

[Robert Thomas]

As I understand it.



I thought that passage of the amendment would effect/stop benefit payments now authorized and made by some counties to same sex couples, while bringing NC in line with other State's to change language to prevent an juridical overturn of the original law?



I agree that in the end it will have no effect other than making it much more difficult to overturn the original law. To overturn the original law will now require a 2/3rds vote by the legislators and a popular vote by the people of the State?



Had the present vote not passed it would have been a moral victory for same sex couples rights with no effect on the law?



Gene



Thanks for your post. :haveabeer:

 

[Doctor CAD]

Same sex couples DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS, anymore or less than opposite sex couples.



Show me which "right" has been taken away by this ridiculous vote.



I voted against it, as if that matters, but only because I am very tired of redundant laws.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yeah, well, as predicted, such amendments will be deemed unconstitutional.



Haters can't hate...

 

[Gavin Allan]

We all support gays here, because we bought our Ford Sport Tracs. Ford Motor Company is a very strong supporter of gays and gay rights.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

DoctorCad,



Our country was founded on the belief that we should be allowed to live our own lives, as we see fit, and that when government (at that time a foreign government) oppressed such rights especially through taxation without representation that the people should fight to change that.



There are gays that want to marry. They work, they earn money, they pay taxes, they vote. But, in many states and until this recent ruling even the federal government does not allow them to enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. I'm talking about simple things like receiving SSI survivor benefits, etc. Are these things RIGHTS? No, not per say. But, they are benefits of being taxpaying citizens of our fair country. We as citiizens get to help shape these benefits and the programs that deliver them through our voting and through the politicians we elect.



So, if a gay person can't marry in a particular state then that person cannot receive the rights that marriage might afford in that state, and the same was true until recently for federal benefits.



Since much of these benefits are paid for through taxation, yet there are people that by their sexuality cannot enjoy such benefits, that, to me, is taxation without representation as the gays are representative of the programs and their benefits.



TJR