Thread: North Carolina and Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by zraver

Judges make decisions based on state decisis, to do otherwise risks a reversible error. Thus thier hands are tied and they must decide one way.

It's no secret that Judges are bound by law. Australia is federated much like you.

Its not only unfair, its unjust becuase it doesn't take the actual needs of the child into consideration. A parent who is otherwise fit- loving, attentive, dedicated is decided to be unfit by whom they choose to love. Meanwhile a parent who would normally lose for various reasons must be found more fit than the other parent.

It's the law your battling then, not me. There is a lot of unfair results in child custody (or so it would seem) I have often wondered why such seemingly unjust outcomes cannot modify the law. Not abolish, but modify it. Which brings me to the question - why is it that so many laws and policies enter into our lives without empirical quantification? It is somewhat frightening to think that government policies seem to always sit on sloganism.

Same-sex marriage: Empathy or right?

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, May 17, 7:37 PM

There are two ways to defend gay marriage. Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views.

No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy.


Prominent political figures who support same-sex marriage: President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage Wednesday, making him the latest — and most prominent — U.S. politician to call for gay nuptials. Here are a few other prominent political figures who have supported gay marriage.

At the same time, however, one can sympathize with others who feel great trepidation at the radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions, one that, until yesterday, was heterosexual in all societies in all places at all times.

The empathy argument both encourages mutual respect in the debate and lends itself to a political program of gradualism. State by state, let community norms and moral sensibilities prevail. Indeed, that is Obama’s stated position.

Such pluralism allows for the kind of “stable settlement of the issue” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented had been “halted” by Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, an issue as morally charged and politically unbridgeable as gay marriage.

Argument B is more uncompromising: You have the right to marry anyone, regardless of gender. The right to “marriage equality” is today’s civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights — and just as inviolable.

Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.

Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California’s Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias — “serves no purpose . . . other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.”

Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand[ing] rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights.

Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.

No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction.

Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution — a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being — given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped.

He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for the U.S. Senate and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again.

When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine.

Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him toward nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility toward proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.

True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Is gay marriage a matter of empathy or of rights? - The Washington Post

Empathy or right? Absent in this commentary is the question, what is good for society?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Empathy or right? Absent in this commentary is the question, what is good for society?

That is a question that apparently cannot be answered because every good advanced is rejected by you.

Again for what its worth of generally recognized social goods from a semi-conservative slant.

1. More marriages mean more wealth creation equaling greater government tax revenues with out greater tax rates and more jobs.
2. More and [more] permanent homes for kids currently in state care
3. lower suicide and drug abuse rates among GLBT teens
4. Less government intrusion in to adults private affairs
5. Less discrimination
6. further separation between government and certain religious ideologies
7. more equitable application of things like inheritance, hospital visitation, child custody awards
8. More emphasis on contribution to society vs orientation in the bedroom.
9. Less national division, or at least 1 fewer issue for those in power to use to divide us.
10. Increased division between socialist/progressives [those who want to spend the public's treasure] and social rightists [those who treasure privacy].

Originally Posted by zraver

1. lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. We know for a fact that Washington protected at least 2 gay couples and made sure a trans-gendered woman got an honorable discharge. We also know for a fact that Jefferson lightened the penalty for sodomy.

2. Stop cherry picking your responses and reply to what i actually write please.



Neither has anything to do with what I wrote, as for what dale blows...

A marriage between heretosexuals in this country is covered by the full faith and credit clause. The federal government and te states are beign driven by the phobes to pass laws that up-end this rock bottom foundation stone of our society.



He was booted and he was accused of sodomy, we do not know if he was in fact gay. Nor could have been killed for sodomy sine that was not a capitol crime in the Continental Army. The only crime we can prove he was likely guilty of was bearing false witness and slander while an officer of the Continental Army. An officer who cannot be trusted cannot be allowed to lead men in battle and will be drummed out.



From your first source

1600's

Plymouth- no formal charges of sodomy.

Mass Bay Colony- 1 lesbian couple but only 1 of the women was charged and she was not killed.

Massachuessets (using the English law rather than the previous laws the colonies had) 1 prosecution for rape.

Once the US came into existence the state removed the death penalty and had only a single prosecution through Reconstruction....

Your sources aint help ya... Even the Puritans who would put you in stocks for farting in church wouldn't kill a gay...




What you too macho to acknowledge von Stueban? He taught American men how to use their long arms and ram it home to the enemy...



His letters are clear, nor am I gay.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO JOHN LAURENS

[April, 1779]

Cold in my professions – warm in my friendships – I wish, my Dear Laurens, it were in my power, by actions rather than words, to convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that 'till you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my happiness independent of the caprice of others. [z- doesn't want to be outed by political opponents] You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility, to steal into my affections without my consent.[z- sounds like he got seduced and he straight life went sideways] But as you have done it, and as we are generally indulgent to those we love, I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on one condition; that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the partiality, which you have so artfully instilled into me. . . .
And Now my Dear as we are upon the subject of wife, I empower and command you to get me one in Carolina. Such a wife as I want will, I know, be difficult to be found, but if you succeed, it will be the stronger proof of your zeal and dexterity. . . .
If you should not readily meet with a lady that you think answers my description you can only advertise in the public papers and doubtless you will hear of many . . . who will be glad to become candidates for such a prize as I am. To excite their emulation, it will be necessary for you to give an account of the lover – his size, make, quality of mind and body, achievements, expectations, fortune, &c. [z- how can that be described with out intimate knowledge?] In drawing my picture, you will no doubt be civil to your friend; mind you do justice to the length of my nose and don't forget, that I [about five words here have been mutilated in the manuscript].
After reviewing what I have written, I am ready to ask myself what could have put it into my head to hazard this Jeu de follie. Do I want a wife? No – I have plagues enough without desiring to add to the number that greatest of all; and if I were silly enough to do it, I should take care how I employ a proxy.[z- pretty clear it was a show marriage] Did I mean to show my wit? If I did, I am sure I have missed my aim. Did I only intend to [frisk]? In this I have succeeded, but I have done more. I have gratified my feelings, by lengthening out the only kind of intercourse now in my power with my friend. Adieu
Yours.



You are of course aware most gays have been in straight marriages....



Nice cherry picking.... Ben was never married, was sexually edgy and friends with a gay playwright.... hardly the homophobic hero you desire and long for



Private is none of my business, but if we are going to allow minority parades we need to base them on a common set of laws that applies equally to all- time, place use not message.

Jad,

Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, a survey of over 1,231
societies found only 186 monogamous societies and 1,045 polygamous
societies.

I use polyamourus which is a modern term because of the sheer variety of family/sexual arrangements across cultures. To a lot of people, polygamous means something other than what the strict definition says it means. Polyamory however is not a 3 some, but a long term family/sexual unit that has more than a single pair bond at its core. Poly relationships may be male or female headed, may be two or couples together, 3 individuals together or a person who dates two others but not together among many other forms.

[lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. We know for a fact that Washington protected at least 2 gay couples and made sure a trans-gendered woman got an honorable discharge. We also know for a fact that Jefferson lightened the penalty for sodomy.]

No we do not as there is some huge holes in the gayness you believe. Lightening the penalty for sodomy means absolutely nothing. Jefferson was a firm believer in that the punishment should fit the crime. Hell, he reduced it to something I wouldn't have an issue with does that make me gay? Not a chance. Furthermore Jefferson had to think that sodomy was indeed a crime or he would have written to stricken it from the books. Alas he did not. Jefferson did in fact think sodomy was a crime.


[Stop cherry picking your responses and reply to what i actually write please.]

Your the one who believes our founding fathers supported homosexualities and that is what I am responding to. Your also trying to compare slavery to homosexuals. All I did was point out the folly in that.



[A marriage between heretosexuals in this country is covered by the full faith and credit clause. The federal government and te states are beign driven by the phobes to pass laws that up-end this rock bottom foundation stone of our society.]

Thats about as bass ackwards as can be. First, you have to resort to name calling again. Sorry to inform you Z but one does not need an irrational fear of homosexuals to not agree with their agenda. Secondly, this society/country has been just fine with the concept of one man-one woman marriages since day one. Its the homosexuals who are trying to turn everything upside down by changing the meaning/definition of marriage and that is the driving force behind the new laws. The new laws only reafirm what has been going on for more than 200 years. Apparently the homosexuals need things spelled out for them.


[From your first source

1600's

Plymouth- no formal charges of sodomy.

Mass Bay Colony- 1 lesbian couple but only 1 of the women was charged and she was not killed.

Massachuessets (using the English law rather than the previous laws the colonies had) 1 prosecution for rape.

Once the US came into existence the state removed the death penalty and had only a single prosecution through Reconstruction....

Your sources aint help ya... Even the Puritans who would put you in stocks for farting in church wouldn't kill a gay...]

OK, for the second time. "About the only time a man/woman getting into trouble for sodomy was in cases of rape. Other than that nearly if not all cases of sodomy were SAME SEX." Meaning that the authorities were only interested in SAME SEX sodomy unless there was a RAPE involved. The sources proved that pretty well.


[What you too macho to acknowledge von Stueban? He taught American men how to use their long arms and ram it home to the enemy...]

[You are of course aware most gays have been in straight marriages....]


LOL. So did I or did I not acknowledge Steuben. Are you really that confused?

Now your the one on thin ice here. Before you say wah wah wah gays cant marry then you come up with " most gays have been in straight marriages". Can't eat your cake and have it too Z. BTW Not only was Steuben married he had multiple kids. Hamilton had 8 kids. Sorry Z your either gay or your not. If they really were gay, zero kids or a single kid could be explained. 8 kids meant he was hittin' it good and that is not homosexual behavior by any stretch of the imagination.

[Nice cherry picking.... Ben was never married, was sexually edgy and friends with a gay playwright.... hardly the homophobic hero you desire and long for]

Yep Ben sure was the ladies man wasn't he. Cherry picking? Is Ben not one of the founding fathers you were pining that was supporting your cause? Clearly Ben thought otherwise and that quote proved it in such an ironclad way even you can't twist the meaning. Ben even proved that one does not have to be a homophobic person to believe in the man-woman union of marriage. Ben also proved that you can be friends with someone, even homosexuals, and not believe they can get married, or even approve of what they do. That is if his playwright friend was even gay in the first place. Hamilton and Steuben clearly are not so I am starting to have doubts about all the gay people in your examples.

[Private is none of my business, but if we are going to allow minority parades we need to base them on a common set of laws that applies equally to all- time, place use not message.]

If they wanted it to be no one else's businesses they would not be having parades. Clearly they want everyone to know.
Your right on the second part Z, and we already have that. It doesn't matter what race or occupation or sexual orientation you are. A marriage is one man and one woman. That way of life worked so well that we went from a colony to a world power.

There is in life a thing called friendship and among something called best friend.He knows things about me nobody else does and viceversa.Sorry to inform ya all but both we had a hard on for each other.For each other sisters and female cousins,just to clarify.I don't know in Z's list of examples about most of them,but the Byzantine emperor Basil I was married several times,had multiple kids and is the founder of the Macedonian dinasty.The Church at the time condemned homosexuality vehemently.
So what Z does is offering poor history to justify dubious goals.I suspect,but won't bother researching there is the homo equivalent of the Afrocentric history.The sort that calls Cleopatra black because she ruled Egypt which is in Africa and everyone but the most ardent racist knows that Africans are black as coal.

Originally Posted by Mihais

There is in life a thing called friendship and among something called best friend.He knows things about me nobody else does and viceversa.Sorry to inform ya all but both we had a hard on for each other.For each other sisters and female cousins,just to clarify.I don't know in Z's list of examples about most of them,but the Byzantine emperor Basil I was married several times,had multiple kids and is the founder of the Macedonian dinasty.The Church at the time condemned homosexuality vehemently.
So what Z does is offering poor history to justify dubious goals.I suspect,but won't bother researching there is the homo equivalent of the Afrocentric history.The sort that calls Cleopatra black because she ruled Egypt which is in Africa and everyone but the most ardent racist knows that Africans are black as coal.

"In most accounts of their relationship Nicholas and Basil are united in a church ceremony. According to one tradition, on the morning after finding him Nicholas 'bathed and dressed Basil and was ceremonially united to him, and kept him as his housemate and companion. (Chronicle of George in Istrin 2:5). Another version is more explicit about the ceremony 'and on the next day he went with him to the baths and changed [his clothes] and going into the church established a formal union with him, and they rejoiced in each other.' (George in Moravcsik p 120) The odd final phrase would probably recall to a Christian Greek reader the biblical "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth." (Prov 5:18)
"Given the wording in the chronicles (one uses adelphiopioinois, another adelphiopiointos) and the fact that the union is accomplished in a church, there can be little doubt that the writers have in mind....

Not poor history at all.

Neither are the letters, the wording used is intimate, that of lovers not friends.

BH

No we do not as there is some huge holes in the gayness you believe. Lightening the penalty for sodomy means absolutely nothing.

If it means nothing, why did he do it?

Jefferson was a firm believer in that the punishment should fit the crime. Hell, he reduced it to something I wouldn't have an issue with does that make me gay? Not a chance. Furthermore Jefferson had to think that sodomy was indeed a crime or he would have written to stricken it from the books. Alas he did not. Jefferson did in fact think sodomy was a crime.

1. He wrote it, but he was not king and could not simply erase it even had he wanted to.
2. Sodomy was not just male-male, but same sex, rape and animal-human. Why would he decriminalize it entirely?

Thats about as bass ackwards as can be. First, you have to resort to name calling again. Sorry to inform you Z but one does not need an irrational fear of homosexuals to not agree with their agenda.

Americans are supposed to support liberty and justice.

Secondly, this society/country has been just fine with the concept of one man-one woman marriages since day one.

Uhm no, do we really need to go through the history of marriage in the US again? Child-child, child-adult, man and many wives, inter-racial marriage, cousin marriage, no divorce, no fault divorce............. serously your ideal doesn't exist, never did.

Its the homosexuals who are trying to turn everything upside down by changing the meaning/definition of marriage and that is the driving force behind the new laws. The new laws only reafirm what has been going on for more than 200 years. Apparently the homosexuals need things spelled out for them.

And Mihais was talking about bad history. I made a challenge to Dalem one time to find a single 50 year period that had seen major revisions to the idea of "traditional marriage" in the US. He failed.

Your the one who believes our founding fathers supported homosexualities and that is what I am responding to. Your also trying to compare slavery to homosexuals. All I did was point out the folly in that.

Hamilton was at least bi, Von Stueban was at least bi, Washington protected both, Franklin knew about Von Stueban and still wrote him letter recommending him to Washington. Jefferson did lighten the penalties, Franklin was a friend to a gay playright, Washington did honorably discharge a transgendered woman and no homosexual was ever kicked out of the Continental army for being gay- FACTS.

OK, for the second time. "About the only time a man/woman getting into trouble for sodomy was in cases of rape. Other than that nearly if not all cases of sodomy were SAME SEX." Meaning that the authorities were only interested in SAME SEX sodomy unless there was a RAPE involved. The sources proved that pretty well.

Nope, hate to confound your argument, well not really I actually enjoy it.

Women accused of such were tried for witchcraft, in fact the two crimes parallel each other. Identical acts which would get one sex charged with one offense, would see the other sex get charged with the other.

LOL. So did I or did I not acknowledge Steuben. Are you really that confused?

Now your the one on thin ice here. Before you say wah wah wah gays cant marry then you come up with " most gays have been in straight marriages". Can't eat your cake and have it too Z. BTW Not only was Steuben married he had multiple kids. Hamilton had 8 kids. Sorry Z your either gay or your not. If they really were gay, zero kids or a single kid could be explained. 8 kids meant he was hittin' it good and that is not homosexual behavior by any stretch of the imagination.

Hamilton's letters are clear, and the reason VS fled the Prussian court is historically documented. Bi at least, more likely gay by desire and straight by convention.

Yep Ben sure was the ladies man wasn't he. Cherry picking? Is Ben not one of the founding fathers you were pining that was supporting your cause? Clearly Ben thought otherwise and that quote proved it in such an ironclad way even you can't twist the meaning.

Why didn't he follow his own advice? He ha dno problem bedding women, but he never married.....

Ben even proved that one does not have to be a homophobic person to believe in the man-woman union of marriage. Ben also proved that you can be friends with someone, even homosexuals, and not believe they can get married, or even approve of what they do. That is if his playwright friend was even gay in the first place. Hamilton and Steuben clearly are not so I am starting to have doubts about all the gay people in your examples.

[quote]You claimed the founders were homphobes who saw the behavior as a sin worthy of death, I've refuted that claim.

If they wanted it to be no one else's businesses they would not be having parades. Clearly they want everyone to know.
Your right on the second part Z, and we already have that. It doesn't matter what race or occupation or sexual orientation you are. A marriage is one man and one woman. That way of life worked so well that we went from a colony to a world power.

Idealized history that does not exist. America has seen kids as young as 4 legally married and even today in some states kids can still get married. Or are you going to claim a 13 year old is a man/woman when they can't drive (most cant see over the steering wheel), work, vote, get credit, be held to account under an adult legal code... 1 man 1 woman is a myth.

In modern America marriage is about love- not family alliance or kids. Two straights who love each other can get married, two gays who love each other cannot- that makes it discrimination.