Quote :

"Why did you roll your eyes? It's the most important question in this discussion. Why do you need the government to recognize your marriage?"

your using your words incorrectly...marriage is the willful, legal recognition of a partnership and as such:

my wife and i chose to legally bind our assets to the other because we wish to be in a lifelong monogamous relationship and our lives are made easier by going through legal channels designed to do that...so we got "married"

furthermore, we wanted to throw a large party to celebrate this legal and binding agreement (much like a house-warming party after purchasing a home, which is another legal and binding agreement recognized by the government), and use of the word "marriage" is more succinct than the alternatives

honestly, if i were as a big a jackass as some of you, i'd judge you for being to pussy to go the legal route since you're so sure of the love and dedication you share with your significant others...fortunately, i limit concerns of love to myself those it directly affects instead of anonymous dickbags on message boards

6/26/2013 1:26:00 PM

guys, your argument is a separate issue, take it to another thread

6/26/2013 1:31:45 PM

Quote :

"my wife and i chose to legally bind our assets to the other because we wish to be in a lifelong monogamous relationship and our lives are made easier by going through legal channels designed to do that...so we got "married" furthermore, we wanted to throw a large party to celebrate this legal and binding agreement (much like a house-warming party after purchasing a home, which is another legal and binding agreement recognized by the government), and use of the word "marriage" is more succinct than the alternatives"

That's fine. You could also legally bind your assets with a regular contract. This would end discrimination altogether. People could enter heterosexual, homosexual, or polyamorous contracts, if they so chose.

You can also still have a marriage ceremony without a piece of paper.

Quote :

"your using your words incorrectly...marriage is the willful, legal recognition of a partnership"

If I declare a lasting commitment to my partner, it's marriage.

Quote :

"honestly, if i were as a big a jackass as some of you"

You should probably re-read this thread and check out who started with the rudeness.

Hint: It's you. The problem is you see this as an attack on your personal choices, which it isn't.

Quote :

"i'd judge you for being to pussy to go the legal route since you're so sure of the love and dedication you share with your significant others...fortunately, i limit concerns of love to myself those it directly affects instead of anonymous dickbags on message boards"

I'm not afraid to go the legal route, I just want to minimize government involvement in my personal life.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 1:40:07 PM

hey guys, can we get back to marrying dogs, quoting the bible, and moving out of state if you don't like our ways?

6/26/2013 1:43:20 PM

There's a thread for that on GOLO.

Go, be amongst your people.

6/26/2013 1:46:03 PM

nah, too slow over there.

6/26/2013 1:50:16 PM

Quote :

"guys, your argument is a separate issue, take it to another thread"

there's nothing else going on in this thread, though...the decision came back, this thread is done

Quote :

"That's fine. You could also legally bind your assets with a regular contract. This would end discrimination altogether. People could enter heterosexual, homosexual, or polyamorous contracts, if they so chose."

you're confusing the issue...or, rather, bringing up two separate ones

do you want the government out of your love life, be it hetero, homo, poly, etc? DONE. you don't need the government to rubber-stamp your love, so stop bringing it up

the complaint in this thread is that the contract is discriminatory, which i (and most educated adults who aren't religious zealots) agree with...but it's still a contract and if you don't like it, you don't need to sign it

Quote :

"You can also still have a marriage ceremony without a piece of paper."

who said otherwise? you really should stop making assumptions...it makes you sound stupid

Quote :

"If I declare a lasting commitment to my partner, it's marriage."

not really, not by definition...but it goes back to the fact that you can declare all you want, and that's worth exactly what saying words that have no legal backing are worth

and if that's all you're willing to do, that's fine...i support your choice 100% and don't feel the need to be disdainful of you

Quote :

"You should probably re-read this thread and check out who started with the rudeness. Hint: It's you. The problem is you see this as an attack on your personal choices, which it isn't."

you clearly have no idea what's going on in this thread...my personal choice is my legal one, as well...i'm not attacked, but neither are you

you CHOOSE to forgo the legal aspect of your relationship, while others do not...why do you think you have a right to complain about the choice you've made (which you can also change whenever you feel like it)?

Quote :

"I'm not afraid to go the legal route, I just want to minimize government involvement in my personal life."

do you have any idea how silly that sounds...read it again and get back with me

done? so you want to minimize government in your legal rights and contracts? you can! just make that lovely declaration you mentioned earlier and you will get exactly as much legal protection and rights that come with it...it's simple

if you want government support, you gotta play the game...don't like the game? leave or stop bitching

6/26/2013 1:54:57 PM

there is no other discussion because no one wants to jump into your old, already-had argument

6/26/2013 2:14:06 PM

^^
No, you're stupid and your arguments are silly!!

6/26/2013 2:21:12 PM

^^ excellent, i assume that means you're gone from this thread? bye bye now

^ pretty much

it's a pointless argument, in any case...anyone who thinks the institution of marriage is going anywhere in this country any time soon is delusional...we'll (eventually) make it available to everyone and the anti-establishment will continue to grumble quietly in their minority while everyone else goes about getting married, savings bazillions of dollars in tax money, and opening the gifts the federal government sends them on their anniversary each year

6/26/2013 2:29:02 PM

So does this have any bearing to amendment 1?

6/26/2013 3:00:57 PM

this is what I posted last page:

Quote :

"Quote : "so does the dismissal of Prop 8 mean that the NC Amendment 1 or any other State amendments defining marriage as one man one woman can be appealed?" i don't think the dismissal of hearing Prop 8 has any impact on NC or other states, but the language used in the DOMA decision certainly does. I bet briefs are already being filed and when the case is inevitably heard i don't see how Amendment 1 can stand."

i think the DOMA decision will definitely have an impact, but there is no immediate bearing

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 3:09:59 PM

Everything I heard this morning from both the left and the right indicates not immediately, but it goes a long way towards getting garbage like that overturned due to the now set precedence.

6/26/2013 3:10:55 PM

I think now it brings into question the validity of, say, a marriage from New York for a couple now living in North Carolina. Is that marriage now unrecognized because someone lives in North Carolina? There will be hundreds and thousands of lawsuits on this exact topic and it will wind up at the scotus probably in 2 years or so.

6/26/2013 3:37:27 PM

^my understanding (based on nothing but what i heard on the radio today) is that states would have to honor marriages from other states... I thought that was the case before, but this ruling ensures states can't deny benefits based on the gender of a person's legal spouse.

6/26/2013 3:43:58 PM

Quote :

"so does the dismissal of Prop 8 mean that the NC Amendment 1 or any other State amendments defining marriage as one man one woman can be appealed?"

My understanding of prop 8, and the lower courts ruling on it is this.
Gay Marriage was legal in California when a court in CA found it unconstitutional to deny same sex couples rights to marry.
Prop 8 amended the constitution of CA to define marriage in a way that made same sex marriage illegal
It was challenged in court, and the decision that won out, and overturned Prop 8, was that since Gay men and women had previously had the right to marry, it was unconstitutional to then remove that right from them.

Since NC and several other states have never legalized gay marriage, amendments like Amendment 1 are still valid. The DOMA decision will definitely influence future court challenges, but the commentary I have heard so far today has said that if someone in NY or MA comes to NC or other states that do not recognize same sex marriage, then the state is not required to recognize it, but the federal government will continue to do so.

So, if you got gay married elsewhere and live in NC, you now receive federal marriage benefits, but not State benefits.


Edit:I'll ammend that even the "analyst" discussing DOMA were only guessing at what it would mean based on how they interpreted the decision within the few hours of the announcement

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2013 4:09:28 PM

^^ I think states could honor the marriage or they could choose not to honor it. Whichever way a particular state decides to treat the issue there will be a faction of people who will challenge it in court. Once all these cases start making their way to the federal appeals courts and there's 2 or 3 different ways to rule on the issue, that's when the Supreme Court will hear the case. But because the Supreme Court left it as a state law issue, there is currently no law that says a state must recognize it. They basically punted the issue a few years down the road because they either lacked the courage to tackle it now or because they want it to use it to run a media smokescreen on all the terrible decisions they make in the near future (which is what they did here).

tl;dr there is no law which says a state must recognize a same-sex marriage from another state and that will be the issue being debated in the court system starting tomorrow.

6/26/2013 5:25:15 PM

Quote :

"Since NC and several other states have never legalized gay marriage, amendments like Amendment 1 are still valid. "

not necessarily. they could still be struck down as unconstitutional in general. the existence of the previous right to marry in California was just used as part of the argument against prop8, but it would not be the only argument against it.

6/26/2013 5:49:47 PM

The GOLO and WRAL Facebook meltdowns are epic. Get out the popcorn!

Quote :

"You must be out of your mind! That has to be the most uneducated, absurd thing I've read all day! So since you apparently didn't do very well in Biology, let me educate you very quickly so that you don't make another ridiculous statement like that again. Eye color and Skin color are GENETIC! They are determined by your DNA. Homosexuality is NOT genetic, it is NOT determined by DNA! To suggest that people are born gay is to suggest that my God made a mistake. Since I don't believe that God makes mistakes, my belief is that homosexuality is a choice."

The above quote is from GOLO.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 5:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 5:52:51 PM

That GOLO comment is so great. It's amazing how this person argues science, science, science, gentics, GOD...lol, the disconnect is hilarious.


On to the legal implications. Since the SCOTUS has knocked down DOMA, doesn't that set precedent for trials to start in other states?

6/26/2013 6:22:58 PM

^The first minute of this clip maybe addresses that. I'll have more thoughts to share later, but right now I'm off the Equality NC Decision Day event that will be part educational with their staff and lawyers sharing information and interpretations and part celebration!

6/26/2013 7:02:55 PM

had no idea Pete Williams was gay until reading it in an article earlier

6/26/2013 8:21:53 PM

So I guess this means military spouses get full benefits? I only ask because I'm sure all of my Marines (all male) are going to marry each other now. They're not gay, they just want the BAH.

6/26/2013 8:44:10 PM

Quote :

"Now, I'm really looking forward to the gay version of Loving vs. Virginia that is coming any time now."

You're gonna have a hard time looking forward to that, considering that no one is being thrown in jail for claiming to be married to someone of the same sex...

6/26/2013 10:30:48 PM

Quote :

"This almost makes it feel hopeless to even try to accomidate all these. I think the black and white line of use the restroom of the gender you are currently assigned works fine."

Naaaahhh, man. we need to have 50-something different bathrooms just so nobody has to feel uncomfortable!

6/26/2013 10:35:16 PM

My current understanding of the results are that without standing, the previous ruling about the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 stands, and the freedom to marry returns to California putting about a 3rd of the country's population in marriage equality states.

With the ruling against DOMA federal recognition will be granted to couples in states that recognize marriage equality and it will likely mean an end to the feds splitting up bi-national same-sex married couples through deportation since presumably they will now be able to apply for citizenship in the same way straight couples do.

Though there is the less tangible but very important momentum added by these 2 huge victories that will help at the state legislative and referendum level, there is the more tangible legal language and precedents that will now be used in court challenges to marriage bans around the country.

I didn't make it to the watch party in the morning that the LGBT Center of Raleigh hosted, which I only heard about on the news after the fact, but I did go to the evening celebration at the Pullen Baptist Memorial Church beside State's campus. There was a festive mood and plenty of media there.

6/26/2013 11:52:14 PM

^^I thought the standard solution was single-occupancy unisex restrooms (preferably ones meant for general use, not like squirrelled away in the nurse's office), esp. for people with nonbinary gender identities.

6/27/2013 6:05:03 AM

Quote :

"my understanding (based on nothing but what i heard on the radio today) is that states would have to honor marriages from other states... I thought that was the case before, but this ruling ensures states can't deny benefits based on the gender of a person's legal spouse."

that's incorrect. the federal government will now have to recognize the marriage but not other states.

6/27/2013 7:47:15 AM

I was really hoping to find some stupid on Facebook... but I didn't....

6/27/2013 8:36:28 AM

I kept my cheers sarcastic, but limited on Facebook and failed to get unfriended by anyone. I guess they got it out of their system during Amendment One

6/27/2013 8:52:26 AM

^^^^
Burro needs to complain about something, let him have his fun.

[Edited on June 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM. Reason : ]

6/27/2013 9:43:10 AM

Quote :

"^^I thought the standard solution was single-occupancy unisex restrooms (preferably ones meant for general use, not like squirrelled away in the nurse's office), esp. for people with nonbinary gender identities."

As in addition to M/F restrooms or changing all to single occupancy?

Neither really works/will fly. No one is going to want 3 or more sets of restrooms; it's just wasteful. And single occupancy won't work because it won't meet demand requirements/code unless you have a bunch of them, which goes back to point 1, it's wasteful.

6/27/2013 9:47:37 AM

the building where i work has a large men's bathroom and a large women's bathroom on the first floor and a single occupancy unisex bathroom upstairs. this would work fine.

6/27/2013 9:58:02 AM

Same here, that's how most new buildings are designed.

6/27/2013 9:59:29 AM

Quote :

"So I guess this means military spouses get full benefits? I only ask because I'm sure all of my Marines (all male) are going to marry each other now. They're not gay, they just want the BAH."

You realize this option has been open to opposite-sex straight persons since forever, right?

6/27/2013 10:49:26 AM

i assumed that post was sarcasm

6/27/2013 10:51:35 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

6/27/2013 11:35:22 AM

Quote :

"You're gonna have a hard time looking forward to that, considering that no one is being thrown in jail for claiming to be married to someone of the same sex..."

Burro, you're such a stupid little twit.

The Loving case ultimately ruled that barring inter-racial marriage was illegal. A similar case will invariably come, not so much because someone is put in jail, but because it will be challenged on similar grounds.

While the specific details of Loving and specific details of whatever future case comes before SCOTUS will not be identical, the underlying premise will be almost identical. I also fully expect that the arguments for and against will be similar as will the outcome.

I mean honestly, don't you ever get tired of being dead wrong on this issue? Your arguments are fatally flawed. Despite people repeatedly pointing out how and why you're wrong you just keep plugging along. It would almost be admirable if it weren't so colossally frustrating to deal with

[Edited on June 27, 2013 at 2:18 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

6/27/2013 2:04:22 PM

Ugh. I agree with kurtis. Fuck. His is almost as bad as liking something rand Paul said.

6/27/2013 5:29:21 PM

^^ no, it ruled that THROWING SOME IN JAIL FOR MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON was illegal. You clearly don't understand the case if you think it was about states refusing to simply recognize such a marriage. It was overturned because you couldn't throw a white man in jail for doing something a black man was allowed to do without being thrown in jail. There's no "fatal flaw" in my argument, and no one has yet to point any out. But hey, feel free to explain how the Loving case wasn't about throwing someone in jail.

Moreover, the phrase "barring interracial marriage" means THROWING SOMEONE THE FUCK IN JAIL. Stop and think about what it means to "ban a marriage." How is the gov't going to do that? Is it your contention that "marriage" only exists if the gov't says so? I guess that means every single marriage that happened before the US gov't existed must not have actually happened, right? This isn't the first time that liberals don't know what a word means, and it won't be the last time they misrepresent things to suit their own ends.

6/28/2013 1:27:28 AM

Just because the bathroom issue was brought up: all of the bathrooms at the Pinhook in Durham are gender neutral and multiple occupancy. I'm aware it's a very specific clientele with relatively little to worry about in the way of harassment, etc., but no one seems to mind the arrangement.

6/28/2013 3:28:06 AM

Quote :

"You realize this option has been open to opposite-sex straight persons since forever, right?"

Yes. I'm not concerned about the fact that it's same-sex. I'm concerned that it's fraud no matter who does it and as their Platoon Sergeant it is something I will have to deal with.

6/28/2013 4:41:32 AM

If they wanted to defraud the government a fake opposite-sex marriage would be a lot easier and not require pretending to be gay. Basically you're dumb and its a dumb thing to mention or worry about.

6/28/2013 6:26:52 AM

6/28/2013 9:12:42 AM

^^ BUT WHAT ABOUT CHUCK AND LARRY?!

6/28/2013 9:13:56 AM

It's pretty sad that some people really think its a concern, that some people are unable to recognize how that complaint doesn't make any sense. Can there be fake marriages between two straight men? Sure, there is no way to stop that, but there is also no way to stop to straight people of opposite sex from having a fake marriage. Since we all recognize that the problem is insignificant for opposite sex marriage, we should all recognize that it is equally or more insignificant for same sex marriage.

But apparently some people can't reach that obvious conclusion.

6/28/2013 9:38:48 AM

My guess is that for people that oppose same-sex marriage, they probably don't view it as "real" even if it's recognized under law. So in this hypothetical scenario presented Pred69 doesn't think any of his marines would marry a woman under false pretenses because they are saving themselves for true love and don't want to have been married before. However, since they don't believe in same-sex marriage, they would apparently have no problem acting gay to fool Pred01 because that marriage wouldn't "count" for them.

Is that what would ACTUALLY happen? No, of course not. But to someone like Pred13 who probably will never see same-sex marriage as valid, he will always be fearful of this

6/28/2013 9:52:45 AM

Quote :

"Yes. I'm not concerned about the fact that it's same-sex. I'm concerned that it's fraud no matter who does it and as their Platoon Sergeant it is something I will have to deal with."

oh no, your job might be marginally more difficult! that is totally grounds for denying equality to millions of people

6/28/2013 10:35:24 AM

Marriages have returned to California!

6/28/2013 9:53:50 PM

Quote :

" no, it ruled that THROWING SOME IN JAIL FOR MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON was illegal. You clearly don't understand the case if you think it was about states refusing to simply recognize such a marriage. It was overturned because you couldn't throw a white man in jail for doing something a black man was allowed to do without being thrown in jail. There's no "fatal flaw" in my argument, and no one has yet to point any out. But hey, feel free to explain how the Loving case wasn't about throwing someone in jail."

Actually, what the supreme court ruled was that, as with almost every other separate but equal decision, the law banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause. They didn't really have much of an interest in the criminal sentencing, more in the underlying Constitutionality of the law that allowed VA to jail him, but hey feel free to explain how it was just about throwing someone in jail. You'll note that in their decision they didn't say, "We find it unconstitutional to jail a white man for marrying a black woman. We further find that it is completely ok for the state of Virginia to continue refusing marriage licenses to interracial couples as log as no one is thrown in jail."

Pro tip: PUTTING SHIT IN ALL CAPS ISN'T ACTUALLY IN AND OF ITSELF A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. Much like yelling in a debate, being louder doesn't make you any more correct.

Quote :

"Moreover, the phrase "barring interracial marriage" means THROWING SOMEONE THE FUCK IN JAIL. Stop and think about what it means to "ban a marriage." How is the gov't going to do that? Is it your contention that "marriage" only exists if the gov't says so? I guess that means every single marriage that happened before the US gov't existed must not have actually happened, right? This isn't the first time that liberals don't know what a word means, and it won't be the last time they misrepresent things to suit their own ends."

Again, as many people have tried to explain to you, and I'll fucking try again here, as long as there are gov't benefits attached to marriage the legal definition of marriage and the legal standing of a marriage ceremony matter. Gay couples have gotten "married" in a lot of places without any government recognition. You can probably find a church in Raleigh to get married tomorrow if you're a gay couple, but your marriage won't mean anything legally without recognition from the body which legislates, enforces, and adjudicates the law... the government. We are a nation of laws, things like legal recognition of a claimed status matter very, very much.

I think it would be great and wonderful if we could get the government out of the business of extending benefits to married couples, but that's never going to happen. The least we, as a civilized society should do is fairly apply our laws to all people based on our Constitution, which is supposed to be the underlying basis of our laws.

Here, read the decision in Loving: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

PS - No one got thrown in jail, the sentence was suspended pending the Lovings moving out of state.

[Edited on June 29, 2013 at 4:47 AM. Reason : I know it's a lot of words, but at least try to undertand what Warren wrote.]

6/29/2013 4:26:31 AM