GSO/Guilford Pols

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

« Caution, may blow up in face | Main | The P word »

Feb 15, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef01676266bff6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Popular opinion:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe Guarino

There should also be a strong effort to explain to the voters that, without this amendment, judges in North Carolina might create a legal right to gay marriage out of thin air; and force it upon our state.

sean coon

you do mean force it down your throat, don't you dr. evil?

Thomas

And Sharia law would right behind it!

Brian Clarey

Here is the full text of Sec. 1 of the bill: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. 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."

The "contract" business muddies the water some, but unless it changes existing state law, which already defines marriage thusly, what would be the point?

Brian Clarey

Guarino's right. Unless this passes, we'll all be required to spend some time in the gloryhole. Pretty sure.

designation

North Carolina's judicial system is nowhere near allowing marriage equality.

Note the Boseman v. Jarrell decision in Dec 201. It was 5-2. Five - Two!! And one of those two dissents was purely on technical grounds (not filing the lawsuit within a 60 day window).

There are few more hostile state supreme courts for gay rights than NC's own seven justices. And they gladly proved it again with gusto barely a year ago.

Raising the prospect of the NC judiciary granting marriage equality anytime soon is either uninformed idiocy or deliberate misdirection.

However, passing this amendment will surely allow the NC judiciary to take a crack at constitutional law again because the amendment author's used the undefined phrase "domestic legal union."

Anyone wanting to keep the judicial branch out of this discussion should vote against the amendment.

Passing the amendment only ensures litigation.

Prell_Shampoo_Fan

Guarino: I'm trying to expand my outdated collection of contemporary Christian/gospel music. What's your "go to" when it comes to rockin'-out to Jesus? Who are the new sensations that are straight-up killing it?

Ed Cone

I'd oppose an amendment that focused on gay marriage alone, but at least proponents wouldn't have to embarrass themselves by changing the subject whenever the substance of their proposal came up.

PSF, your comment looks to me like mockery of the man based on his faith, not disagreement with him based on what he's written or his political arguments. Let's not do that, please.

sean coon

after california's prop 8 was struck down with a clear message that the majority shall not be able to vote to take away civil rights for a minority, this amendment, if passed, seems to be just one of many state laws that'll be tossed onto the pile in front of the SCOTUS down the line.

there's no way guarino & fellow minders of other people's business are going to like the outcome.

polifrog

Ed Cone:

but at least proponents wouldn't have to embarrass themselves by changing the subject whenever the substance of their proposal came up.


I do not think it changes the subject at all.

Consider what you are suggesting in the post. Lacking supporting data you cite polling that does not apply to NC. To your credit you admit that in the post.

However, it is the polling that you ignore that more accurately indicates what the citizens of NC desire. That polling data (60% and greater shows support amendment from nearly all perspectives) clearly indicates the will of the people. Yet , the will of the people has been repeatedly been undercut by the rationalizations of courts across America. You support that in your post.

Therefore we should consider the experience of other states in which the courts have trumped the desires of the citizenry and preemptively force our courts in NC to act in accordance to the wishes of the the citizenry.

Congress is our servant, the executive is our servant, the judiciary is our servant. But the courts have grown in influence to the point that it not only eclipses the congress and executive, but now feels it can refuse the citizenry from which its power is derived. As such, the courts have forced the citizenry to constrain it the only way the citizenry can. Via Constitutional measure.

It is sad that leftists so wish to force it's morality on our nation that our nation has been forced to constitutional measures to contain the them.

Prell_Shampoo_Fan

Very well, Ed, but I think you've got me pegged all wrong. I have a very expansive and eclectic taste in music. I believe we can both agree that tunes like "Samson & Delilah," "Brother Esau," "Gomorrah," and "Greatest Story Ever Told" could be classified as Christian rock.

sean coon

scum. pure scum. how you can sit their and twist logic to fit your desire to control others is astounding. explain to me exactly how a gay couple getting married is "forcing their morality" on anyone?

Brian

Wow, the judiciary is our servant? News to me. So, their role is not to interpret the laws of the land, but to enforce the popular will of the people? I got it. Like someone said before - mob rule.

Doug Clark

The Boseman-Jarrell ruling of our Supreme Court was mischaracterized. It wasn't an issue that it involved a same-sex couple. The ruling would have been the same if the case involved an opposite-sex unmarried couple. North Carolina law does not provide for an adoption unless the natural parent or parents give up custody. The Durham District Court judge who allowed Julia Boseman to adopt Melissa Jarrell's baby while Jarrell maintained custody simply ignored the law. It was significant that our Supreme Court still granted Boseman joint custody "in the best interest of the child," and also suggested that the legislature should address this problem. It's not up to the courts to write laws.

What I would take from this ruling that does relate to same-sex marriage is that our Supreme Court probably would rather the legislature deal with that, too. But that's just a supposition.

justcorbly

Rights come from judges? Hmmm. Who knew?

Government, among other institutions, can protect or interfere with the exercise of rights. But, government's got nothing to do with their creation.

designation

Doug, what are you smoking?

If Boseman v. Jarrell didn't involve a same-sex couple, what in the world does?

The larger point is that the NC Supreme Court is hostile to anything close to LGBT issues. Boseman v. Jarrell is just the latest example. Go back to Pulliam v. Smith or any other case you please.

There is ZERO danger of the NC judiciary bringing the Old North State into the 21st century anytime soon.

People whining about activist courts would do well to grasp that inserting undefined terms into a constitution begs courts to get active.

Doug Clark

Did you read the ruling?

Is a same-sex couple always different under state law than an opposite-sex couple? No, and not in this case.

It was an adoption case, not a case about same-sex marriage.

I agree that our courts would be very unlikely to find a right to same-sex marriage under our constitution, but that was nowhere near the issue in the Boseman-Jarrell case.

Ed Cone

I think the confusion springs from this wording: "It wasn't an issue that it involved a same-sex couple."

As I understand Doug's comment, he was referring to the legal question in dispute, not the people involved.

polifrog

Sean:

...explain to me exactly how a gay couple getting married is "forcing their morality" on anyone?

Well, there is that 60% plus who support the marriage amendment. They are resisting the imposition of a disagreeable morality. They feel forced upon.

Furthermore, marriage is not a right; it is a choice. The court seems to ignore the fact that homosexuals choose their spouse and as such are not prohibited from marriage. That they do not choose to participate in marriage is not a cause for others to accept their morality. If there is any inequality it is self imposed.

By way of explanation consider that the percentage homosexuals is roughly equivalent to the percentage of asexuals. Are asexuals denied marriage rights? If marriage is a right then absurd conclusion that follows is that asexuals are discriminated against because they can't marry. How does one fix this? One can not. And the reason is that marriage is not a right but at its most fundamental level, a choice.

sean coon

the 60% plus can feel "forced upon," but back in reality nothing is being forced upon them. the only way they would be "forced upon" is if they were forced into a homosexual marriage. that isn't happening.

gay people are, by definition, gay. they can't "choose" a member of the opposite sex to marry. gay people aren't asking for others to "accept their morality," they're fighting for the right to marry one another.

your entire premise is twisted logic.

polifrog

Sean:

they can't "choose" a member of the opposite sex to marry.

The question is whether marriage is a right or not. Rights by their very nature must be applicable to all individuals. But as I show marriage can not be applied to all individuals because asexuals can not, by nature, participate in marriage.

Marriage is, therefore, not a right.

Therefore, f it is not a right, it is a choice.

If you believe marriage is a right then you must have a mechanism by which asexuals can marry. What is that mechanism? And if you have no such mechanism how do you intend to ameliorate the damage done to asexuals by not extending rights to asexuals that you wish to extend to non asexuals?

The point is that what you claim to be a right is in reality a choice. The only twisted logic is the lack of logic employed by those who wish to pretend that some choices (the ones they like) are rights.

sean coon

frog, you said marriage was a choice; i told you that gay people have no choice in the matter. that's a fact.

you make zero sense.

polifrog

You can make all the statements you want, but when you do so without a coherent and rational argument all you succeed in doing is to make an unsubstantiated statement.

On the other hand, I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that marriage can not be a right and is, in fact, a choice.

It is for you to prove marriage is a right. I do not think you can.

sean coon

first, it was liberty. now, it's choice. any other love words i should know about? i'd hate to have you choose to gay marry them.

polifrog

I see you can not prove marriage is a right. If it is not a right, how is it a civil right?

David Hoggard

If you are terming asexuals as individuals (+/-1% of the population) who have no interest/desire in engaging in any sexual relations, then you are wrong, poli.

There is nothing in "their nature" that would preclude any asexual from marrying anyone, unless, of course, the couple seeking marriage happened to have the same plumbing thereby defining them - in your eyes - as homosexual. Couples - heterosexuals especially - seek the benefits of marriage for many valid reasons other than their sexuality or procreation of the species.

You have stretched too hard on this "right vs choice" thing.

designation

@frog As a unanimous US Supreme Court reminded the country in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

@Doug Yes. I've read the Boseman ruling. In fact, I was at the oral argument. My reference to Justice Timmons-Goodson's dissent didn't come out of thin air.

An opposite-sex couple wouldn't have been forced into the position Boseman and Jarrell were BECAUSE of the law. The entire situation came from the fact that the law treats opposite-sex couples differently than same-sex couples.


Billy Jones

Guys, gals, things, can't we just all realize that without a few good wedge issues we've no need to elect the politicians in the first place? They were voted-in to drive wedges and until we vote to replace the politicians with Rock-em Sock-em Robots they'll keep doing this until their heads pop off.

michele

poli, you've confused me. If you're defining marriage as a choice and not a right, then why does it need Constitutional protection? I thought that amendments were about defining rights?

Billy Jones

poli confuses himself

Doug Clark

designation, your citation of the Boseman v Jarrell case as an indicator of the court's hostility to same-sex marriage is wrong. The case did not deal with same-sex marriage. It would have been an unreasonable reach for the court to use an adoption case to render a ruling on marriage. It is easily conceivable that an unmarried opposite-sex couple might want to arrange an adoption of the same kind as Boseman-Jarrell, and that couple would have been treated the same by the court.

polifrog

David Hoggard:

There is nothing in "their nature" that would preclude any asexual from marrying anyone, unless, of course, the couple seeking marriage happened to have the same plumbing thereby defining them - in your eyes - as homosexual. Couples - heterosexuals especially - seek the benefits of marriage for many valid reasons other than their sexuality or procreation of the species.

What precludes you from using the same thought process toward homosexuals or heterosexuals...

There is nothing in "their nature" that would preclude any (insert homosexual or heterosexual) from marrying anyone, unless, of course, the couple seeking marriage happened to have the same plumbing thereby defining them ....

If your thought process is good enough for asexuals, then why do you not apply it to all?

polifrog

designation:

@frog As a unanimous US Supreme Court reminded the country in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

And they got it wrong. Activist courts often do that.

sean coon

stop being obstinate. the issue is that same sex couples can't marry. david stated that explicitly. you're getting tiring.

polifrog

Sean:

stop being obstinate. the issue is that same sex couples can't marry. david stated that explicitly.

Obstinance is making unsubstantiated statements. If you wish to prove me wrong you will need more than what david said.

May I suggest you look upthread to michele for inspiration. My responses to you come quickly; my responses to michele come slowly. That happens for a reason.

Thomas

Let's play Poli's game.

"There is nothing in "their nature" that would preclude any homosexual from marrying anyone, unless, of course, the couple seeking marriage happened to have the same plumbing thereby defining them - in your eyes - as homosexual."

Got it. Homosexual's are free to marry, just not each other. So what's everyone complaining about? I guess it would be ok to apply the same restriction to heterosexuals. Am I right?

Thomas

Misplaced apostrophe. Oops.

sean coon

bingo.

michele

I am still confused.

polifrog

Do I have to point out, Thomas, that the quote you ascribe to me is predominantly Dave Hoggard's but altered to make a point?

But that aside, it is the thought process you ascribe to asexuals, no?

polifrog

Michele:

I am still confused.

I'm not ignoring you and mentioned you at 1:46. Keep it up and I'll fall in love or respect or something...

sean coon

now you're going from tinfoil hat to creepy, frog.

polifrog

Friendly respect, sean.

Thomas

Frog - I didn't ascribe any quote to you. I altered DH's quote as you suggested (I just used more of it make my point clear...I thought) to show the outcome of your thinking.

Brian

The issuance of a marriage license affords rights to those couples that are not provided to others. Separate but equal. Think we've had that argument before and ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Barring any effort to remove the rights afforded to married couples from the thousands of laws at the local, state, and federal level, we have a separate but equal system. As far as I know there is no movement afoot to do this (disentangle the word marriage from our laws). Getting bogged down in civil unions vs. marriage misses the point. Governments are issuing marriage licenses. By not issuing them to other couples, it is discrimination. Period. So, argue if you must about whether marriage itself is a right, but understand it is the rights that come with marriage that are at issue.

polifrog

Michelle:

If you're defining marriage as a choice and not a right, then why does it need Constitutional protection? I thought that amendments were about defining rights?

I believe the short answer is that Amendments are not exclusively about defining rights. A national example of an amendment that is not about defining a right would be prohibition. In the case of our state's marriage amendment proposal, marriage is being defined constitutionally so as to guide rogue courts. The courts are not above the will of the citizenry and the amendment process is the citizens' check against courts. There no creation of a right.

However, this piecemeal approach to checking court intransigence is not my preference. I would prefer a more holistic approach in attempting to keep the court in its place.

sean coon

more molasses. three feet deep.

Prell_Shampoo_Fan

"I believe the short answer is..."

Short answer? From you? If only...

greensboro transplant

"Governments are issuing marriage licenses. By not issuing them to other couples, it is discrimination"

so, you believe that the government has an obligation to issue a license to any two people, provided they are mentally capable of entering into contracts. is that your position?

polifrog

Insti--

It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying “What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.