categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

north carolina had nothing better to do

And now for a topic this weblog does not frequently touch upon: Way to be bigoted idiots, ~60% of the North Carolinians who voted yesterday. So glad that you have settled all of the other pressing issues in your state, and feel comfortable wasting your time on something as inane as gay marriage.

Look, so long as everyone involved is legally an adult, consenting, and not being hurt against their wills, it is simply none of your business – or the government’s – who is boinking whom, who has signed a contractual agreement with whom, or any of that nonsense (up to and including who is ingesting what kind of chemicals/substances). As soon as someone other than the voluntarily participating parties are being detrimentally harmed in some specific, measurable, quantifiable fashion, then you can start sticking your bureaucratic, officious nose in where it might possibly belong.

Until then, piss off.

The government simply needs to get out of the "marriage" business, in its entirety – yes, I know full well what that could mean, but damned near everything short of whatever tax benefits you might receive for being married can instead be handled by properly drafted and executed contracts, powers of attorney, and other legal documents between the involved parties. So long as those parties are consenting, and so long as their religious shepherd (if applicable) is likewise amenable to the situation, who the hell are you to deny them a basic human right (the freedom of association, to be specific) on account of their anatomies being more alike than not?

And, for that matter, how are your objections any better, or any different, than those raised by pre-1967 bigots who pulled nearly identical stunts about mixed-race marriage? You do realize you just made them your ideological brothers, right?

(Amusingly (at least if you do not pay attention to the actual, core issues), it is only through my pro-self-defense activism that I was able to reach this conclusion. After all, the right to self-defense is a natural outgrowth of both our rights to life and our rights to choose, and I cannot adequately defend and respect the former without doing the same for the latter two. Likewise, the right to enter into consensually enter into contracts with other persons of legal age (And what is marriage, in the eyes of the government, except a contract?) is a direct outgrowth of that right to choose, and, as such, it would be internally and logically inconsistent of me. I try to avoid that.)

10 comments to north carolina had nothing better to do

  • Divemedic

    In North Carolina, it is a felony to marry if wither party is impotent, and it is also a felony for a gay couple to marry, but completely legal to marry your cousin.
    http://www.cousincouples.com/info/statelaws.htm#NC

  • David

    Just want to point out that neither my wife or I voted for that stupid amendment…

    Sometimes I look at politicians and say to myself what a waste of food and oxygen.

    Dave

  • I see gay marriage as a compromise.

    In my ideal world the state wouldn’t have any say in marriage. The whole consenting adults being able to engage in contracts of their free will.

    Step back and think about how creepy it is that you need to get governmental permission to engage in a romantic/monogamous/long term/whatever relationship.

    That’s really squicky. It’s up there with making sure your papers are in order before you have a kid.

    You know how they say registration leads to confiscation? Well, marriages are registered and licensed too…

  • While I understand your position, and neither agree nor disagree with it, I feel a need to play Devils Advocate, from a States Rights point of view, specifically the interpretation of the 10th Amendment, to wit: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Lets face it…our system was set up, originally, as a Union of Sovereign States, bound by a Federal Agreement to each send a specified number of delegates (Congresscritters and Senators) to a Congress which sits for two years, at which point elections take place for the people to swap out those they hate for those that they don’t hate as much.

    But as the 10th guarantees, any power not delegated to FedGov vis-a-vis the Constitution, is reserved to the States, or to the People. FedGov has no Constitutional Authority to declare what is or isn’t a legal Marriage in the Several States. In accordance with the 10th, the States *DO* have that power, and it is evident in each State’s statutes where they define legal marriages within the state. Some states allow first cousins to marry, other states prohibit. First cousins who wish to marry (in some cultures it is perfectly acceptable) and are in a state such as West Virginia (all jokes aside about cousin-humping rednecks and “Deliverance”, West Virginia actually prohibits first cousin and double-first cousin marriages) and they wish to marry, they pick up their belongings, move to a State that is friendly to first-cousin marriages, establish residency, marry, and live a long happy life (or not) and hopefully are blessed with many fat, happy babies.

    As unbelievably bigoted as it may seem on its surface, NC *has* the right to present to its Citizens the question on a ballot whether or not the majority of its citizens wish to allow changes to the State Constitution which allow same-sex marriage. To say that because the State Constitutions don’t specifically *prohibit* it currently so it must be OK is like saying that because the State Constitutions don’t expressly prohibit marrying Fido (engaging in sexual relations with Fido is prohibited…simply marrying Fido isn’t prohibited) its obviously OK. Problem with that thinking is that over 230 + years ago when state’s Constitutions were being drafted, it was a given that you don’t marry your dog, and you would have been drawn and quartered had you even *attempted* to make the argument that it was OK. It was morally repugnant then, and still is now, but to a lesser degree as alot of the country has lost its moral compass, which is another discussion entirely.

    Back to NC…the People have spoken, for better or worse, and thats that. Two men who wish to marry, or two women, now have a choice to weigh…do they remain in a State which, to them, is diametrically opposed to their core beliefs, or do they leave? The beauty of the concept of Sovereign States is that they can REMAIN within the United States (lets face it, for al its failings its still the best country on earth to be in, even for the foreseeable future…) while still having the freedom to move around *amongst* the Several States until they find one of their liking. Now, if the ones of their liking prohibit *other* things that said M/M or F/F marriages desire, such as gun-friendly laws, low taxation, etc., then they need to weigh the pros/cons, and decide if they are willing to face a lower wage scale, or uber restrictive gun ownership for example, and whather that is an acceptable trade-off.

    For the longest time I had folks ribbing me about being stuck in NY because of their insanely restrictive gun laws, and now I should be in Free America. I weighed the pros/cons of living in Tennessee (the school systems are FAR more accommodating to Special Needs kids in NY than they are in TN, and there is MUCH MORE of the school tax dollars funneled to providing the needed special ed teachers for said kids) and decided that it was best for the family unit as a whole, and for my kids’ freedoms as individuals, to be in a State which respects individual liberties much more than NY, but the trade-off is that the schools down here don’t understand the needs of Autistic kids as well as they do in NY. The quality of life here, overall, is better in the long run, so the wife and I found it to be an acceptable trade-off.

    Point is…we made a decision to leave NY because of a few factors, not the least of which was their gun restrictions, and the state we chose to move to was the best compromise. So I ask the question…WHO CARES what NC did? There are 49 other states to choose from. And no, thats NOT a bigoted statement…its a simple statement of fact. There are States which are pro gay marriage, some of which are actually doing better economically that NC is. Everyone has the freedom in this country to weigh their options, and do what is best for THEM. What folks don’t have the right to do is to force a majority of the people in a State to accept something they don’t want. And yes, this goes for the other side of the coin too…if a state puts the question on its ballot and the majority of people say *yes, we’re fine with it, go ahead and get married and have a long life together*, then so be it. If folks DON’T like it, they can then leave and move *to* NC, which is more to their liking.

    I guess I’m a straight-up States Rights person. I believe that the FedGov has absolutely NO RIGHT to dictate ANYTHING to the States, period. Leave the states alone, and let them sink/swim of their own accord. I want less FedGov. I want MORE State Sovereignty.

  • Divemedic

    @ dragon: To follow your logic, then states should still be permitted to allow slavery. The Fourteenth amendment is a part of the constitution, and mandates that everyone be allowed the same rights. It can’t simply be ignored because you don’t like it. I understand that it wasn’t part of the original constitution, but the amendment process was, and this amendment was added to it through that process.
    Also, that tired old argument of “If we allow gay marriage, then people will marry animals” is a non sequitur. Two consenting adults who wish to get married are different from a person wanting to marry an animal.
    Your argument that a person should be forced to leave their home because the state that they live in is not following the constitution is also flawed. In your example, NY ignores the constitution, so your answer is to leave. Instead, what if you forced NY to follow the constitution? Heller and McDonald were fought for that reason.
    The reason that we are a republic and not a democracy is that pure democracies do not favor individual liberty. Under our system of government, it is not permissible for a majority to vote to restrict the rights of a minority. States do not have rights. People have rights. States have powers, and those powers are rightly restricted when they restrict the rights of individuals.
    Apart from declaring what marriage is, the Federal government DOES have the power to ensure that everyone is treated equally and isn’t having their individual rights trampled on because someone is forcing their bigoted views on others. The fact is, married people have benefits and rights that non-married people do not have. To deny someone the ability to get married is to deny them those rights. That violates the Fourteenth amendment.

    Don’t support gay marriage? Then don’t marry a gay person.

    Also, are you aware that the same tired old argument is used every time bigots want to restrict an individual right? Segregation, stopping interracial marriage, making it illegal for Chinese people to own property or testify in court, and slavery all used the same basic arguments. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. and so are you.

  • MAJ Mike

    Gay marriage? Sure. Gays should get the chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.

  • The thing that surprised me when I bothered to look it up.

    North Carolina is the 43rd state to add a constitutional prohibition on gay marriage. They’ve joined the ranks with California and New York!

    It’s semantic thing, we the people have rights. The states and the feds have powers.

    Until the 13th amendment, yes, the federal government had no power over the states to forbid the practice of slavery. After the 13th the federal government is so empowered and may order the state governments to cease the practice.

    There is no amendment to the federal constitution empowering them to pass law about marriage of any kind; therefore it must be ours or the states. The next place to check is to see if the state constitution has any language about marriage. 43 states now have language about gays being prohibited. Ayup, it appears to be legal.

    Unless getting married is a right that the people retain through the 9th and 10th amendments. So far I haven’t seen any group taking this route to demand their marriage be allowed. Gay organizations have all pursued the statutory route and gotten laws passed at the state level. Laws that generally withstand state constitutional challenge that are then struck down by amending the state constitution.

    Amending the constitution is the proper procedure for when you want a government to have a new power; at both the state and federal level.

    It may be they should not have been granted such a power, but that’s not the same thing as the proper forms were followed to obtain such authority.

  • Medic –

    Slavery: No, that is morally reprehensible, and I would never dream of enslaving my fellow man. Trotting out the *well, you must think slavery is OK then* argument is disingenuous. I’m not arguing that the Constitution was perfect and therefore should not be changed. What I *am* arguing is that the Constitution should be changed when the Citizens determine that it is in the best interest of the Republic to institute said changes. Our Constitution is a document that specifically protects The People from the tyranny of a central FedGov. It is NOT a document by which FedGov can impose its will upon The People. Your position seems to indicate that you feel the Constitution is exactly that, vis-a-vis the 14th.

    I didn’t bring up the 14th, but thank you for doing so. The 14th fundamentally changed the relationship between the FedGov and the Citizens. It effectively trashed the *wall of separation* that the 10th guaranteed, to protect the People from an overbearing FedGov. I understand that the 14th was passed in accordance with the Constitution, and mandates that everyone be allowed the same rights. But lets face it, it was passed BECAUSE a majority in Gov’t wanted to rub the collective noses of the minority population (where political beliefs are concerned) into the dirt, and force *their* will upon said minority. What was that about being a republic as opposed to a democracy? I look at the 14th as EXACTLY what you are saying we shouldn’t do…the majority imposing their way of thinking on a minority population.

    As for NY and gun laws (Heller and McDonald reference), I am completely opposed to FedGov mandating anything. That includes reciprocity between the States for gun licensing. When you allow FedGov to get its nose in *any* tent, regardless of what it is, the People will suffer abuses because nothing that the FedGov does comes without attached strings.

    I didn’t say that I *oppose* gay marriage, and I didn’t say I *support* it. I simply stated that it should be left to the States, and to the people within said states, to determine if that is what they wish. As I said in the prior post…I’m OK with it in both directions. If the population of California, Oregon, Washington, New York…any State in the Union…puts the question on a ballot and the citizens of said State cast their vote and say *hey, its OK by us*, then great! I accept that as the collective will of the People living in that state. They have spoken, they expressed their wishes, and by virtue of the ballot have instituted, amongst themselves, the law(s) that best suit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

    Now, I understand your argument that of course it will fail in the majority of states because the GLBT community is in the minority. I’ll counter that with the fact that you cannot legislate morality. We tried that with Prohibition. It was a dismal failure, and cost countless lives to be lost by a gov’t hell-bent on imposing morality on its Citizens. According to your position, if an amendment is passed following the duly proscribed method delineated in the Constitution, well then, thats OK because the amendment process is there to specifically allow for the *fixes* that are needed in the document that the Founders penned inadequately. So can I assume that if you were living in the early 1900’s, that you would be OK with Prohibition, because it was passed in a Constitutional fashion?

    Anyone who knows me (personally, not via the electronic medium) knows that I am nowhere near being a bigot. What I *am*, though, is a huge proponent of making a case, and gaining people to your thinking, opening up their eyes to what they are afraid of for no reason, and to win over the hearts and minds through positive action. The old adage of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. Sure, its a longer, slower slog, and a much more painful one, but in the end you have fostered acceptance by positive action, not forced it at the jackboot of gov’t dictate.

    I never said that a person should be *forced* to leave their home. I stated that every citizen has the right to look at his surroundings, examine the laws in the State in which he resides, and has the right to determine that it really isn’t to his liking. At that point, he/she has the right to do something about it. He can decide to take up the fight proactively and be at the forefront of winning over the hearts/minds of the fellow citizens in the State, and effect change that way. He can decide that he doesn’t want to put that time/effort into it, and move to a state that is more in line with his moral/political compass. He can also decide that its just too much trouble to do *anything*, and accept his lot in life at this point, and do nothing.

    It isn’t *bigoted* to say that if you don’t like something, then do what you need to do to effectually change it. Whatever it is, be it spearheading a political push for change, deciding that you don’t want to do that much work and just go to a friendlier State, or to go as far as to go to a friendlier Country such as Switzerland, Denmark, etc…those with very Progressive leanings. I’m NOT saying *screw you…if you don’t like it here, get the fuck out*. I’m simply stating that the decision on what to do is with the individual, there are many paths that one can take.

    Lastly, as far as the Constitution is concerned, and the Amendment processes…yes, to change that which was obviously wrong and should be changed is expected. Where the Constitution claimed that a slave was 3/5 of a person is wrong. Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment, as well it should have been. The 15th sealed the right to vote regardless of race or prior servitude, the 19th did the same based on gender. Those were needed. The 14th, though, was an unnecessary amendment because it specifically removed the barrier that protected the Individual from a Central Authority.

  • Rob Crawford

    The problem I have with gay marriage isn’t with allowing gays to form contracts equivalent to marriage (which the NC amendment doesn’t bar, BTW), it’s in the associated impositions on the liberties of others that follow it. Illinois passed a “civil unions and religious liberty protection act” which, based on its title, was supposed to take care of that. Except that the first action after its passage was to sue the Catholic Church for following its beliefs and not treating a gay marriage as the same as a regular one. Apparently what was “protected” (for now) was the ability of a clergyman to decline to perform the ceremony — no other beliefs are protected.

    There was the Arizona (I believe) case of the photographer sued because she didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding. There was no economic damage there; the suit was simply to punish her for having improper beliefs.

    And, of course, the frankly Maoist anti Prop 8 campaign in California. Self denunciation sessions? Mobbing people until they “recant”? Attacking a religious minority because they had the temerity to express their opinion?

    I have no issue with the idea of gays wanting to form families — I’ve held the “government should get out of the marriage business” position for 20 years. But through their actions, I’ve learned to distrust the people pushing the issue. Call me a bigot all you want, but to protect the liberties of 95% of the population I’ll block access to a minor administrative function to the remaining 5%.

  • @ Divemedic: Well, I guess this recent batch of stupidity just falls right in line, then…

    @ David: While the politicians may have been the ones to propose this amendment, it was the people who made it a reality. As always, our problem is not “the government”.

    That said, thanks for voting against it.

    @ The Jack: Precisely. None of our governments, at any level have the right, nor should they have the power, to tell two of-age, legally mature adults that they cannot engage in a mutually-agreed-upon and acceptable contract, whatever that contract may or may not be. That our governments – at all levels – have taken that power is indicative of just how broken our country is, in a microcosmic kind of way.

    Dragon wrote:

    In accordance with the 10th, the States *DO* have that power, and it is evident in each State’s statutes where they define legal marriages within the state.

    That is great. Get a state to define “legal marriage” as “only being between parties of the same racial / ethnic background” and let me know how that goes.

    Furthermore, explain to me how this situation is any different than that one.

    As unbelievably bigoted as it may seem on its surface, NC *has* the right to present to its Citizens the question on a ballot whether or not the majority of its citizens wish to allow changes to the State Constitution which allow same-sex marriage.

    No, they do not. First, states do not have rights – as you already quoted, they have powers. People have rights, and it is always fair to say that the 9th Amendment supersedes the 10th.

    Second, the people, whether we are talking about a majority or not (and, given the remarkably sad voter turnout in NC, we are not), do not have the right to dictate other people’s actions, choices, and lives, so long as those other people are not directly detrimentally affecting another person against their will.

    Oh, “the people” have unquestionably gobbled up that power under the guise of “rights” and “governmental powers”, but that does not make it any more acceptable than an outright ban on firearms in America would be.

    To say that because the State Constitutions don’t specifically *prohibit* it currently so it must be OK is like saying that because the State Constitutions don’t expressly prohibit marrying Fido (engaging in sexual relations with Fido is prohibited…simply marrying Fido isn’t prohibited) its obviously OK.

    Frankly, bullshit, and I am not sure who should be more insulted by your attempt to conflate an animal with an of-age adult human being – you or me.

    Back to NC…the People have spoken, for better or worse, and thats that.

    Again, nonsense, and, no, bringing up slavery in this instance is not a disingenuous argument.

    Specifically, at the time of the Civil War, the overwhelming majority of American citizens (which, at the time, did not include slaves) believed that the slaves should remain property of whomever the hell owned them at the time – this was true of both the South and the North, the former because they wanted to retain their “property”, and the latter because they did not want the soon-to-be-released slaves up their way. In that case, the people had spoken, for better or worse, and that’s that, right?

    Wrong. “The people” were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

    So I ask the question…WHO CARES what NC did?

    So I guess as long as some states respect basic human rights, then we should not care what the other states do? Wow.

    What folks don’t have the right to do is to force a majority of the people in a State to accept something they don’t want.

    Uhm, yes, actually we do.

    People did not want to accept blacks as fellow citizens. They had the right to force the majority of the people in their States and their nation to accept them.

    People did not want to accept blacks as equal fellow citizens. They had the right to force the majority of the people in their States and their nation to accept them.

    People did not want to accept interracial marriages. The folks trying to get those marriages had the right to…

    “Accept” does not equate to “approve of”. “Tolerate”, much though the liberals have hijacked that particular word, does not equate to “endorse”.

    People do things all the time that I would rather they not do, but so long as they are not hurting someone else against their will, I have to accept their actions because it is not my life, it is not my choice, and it is the right thing to do. Now, if those people did start hurting others, then I would be completely within my rights to band together with other like-minded folks and ensure those people did not continue to hurt other people in the future, but that is simply not the case here. No one is harmed by gays deciding to marry one another. There is no detrimental impact to… damned near anything. Oh, sure, a variety of taxation and benefits laws would have to be revisited, but I am of the opinion those laws should not exist regardless, so I am hard-pressed to see that as a strictly “bad” thing – if nothing else, it will keep our government busy and not doing further stupid things like this.

    No one is forcing anyone to approve of homosexuals tying the knot, even in states where it is legally permissible for them to do so. All they are demanding is that they be treated as adult human beings, capable of making their own decisions, choices, and contractual arrangements without officious petty authoritarians looking over their shoulder at every instance.

    Coincidentally, this is not far removed from what we as firearm owners demand.

    What was that about being a republic as opposed to a democracy? I look at the 14th as EXACTLY what you are saying we shouldn’t do…the majority imposing their way of thinking on a minority population.

    *blink*

    *blinkblink*

    I wonder… do you grasp the metric TONNE of irony in those two sentences as compared to the rest of your comments?

    Just in case, though, how is Amendment One in North Carolina any different than the 14th Amendment in this specific fashion?

    I simply stated that it should be left to the States, and to the people within said states, to determine if that is what they wish.

    That is great… except it is not “the people”‘s choice. The choice regarding whether or not two mature adults want to get married or not is exclusively between them and whatever religious shepherd / minister / rabbi / whatever-the-hell-they-happen-to-use. If all three parties (and whatever sect / religion / faith / etc. backs up the last one) are all agreeable and amenable to the exchanging of vows, then who the hell are “the people” to say otherwise?

    As the saying goes, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities,” with the addition of “or majorities” tacked to the end of it.

    So can I assume that if you were living in the early 1900′s, that you would be OK with Prohibition, because it was passed in a Constitutional fashion?

    Uhm, dude, that is your argument. After all, the people spoke, for better or worse, and that was that, right?

    It isn’t *bigoted* to say that if you don’t like something, then do what you need to do to effectually change it.

    And if you take that sentence as an entity unto itself, I cannot disagree with it.

    However, when taken into the context of narrow-minded people having the unmitigated gall to dictate other people’s actions and choices to them on account of those narrow-minded people’s personal beliefs and phobias, that is damned near the personification of “bigotry”.

    Unless, of course, school segregation was not “bigotry” either – after all, the whites did not “like something”, and did what they needed “to do to effectually change it”.

    Whatever it is, be it spearheading a political push for change, deciding that you don’t want to do that much work and just go to a friendlier State, or to go as far as to go to a friendlier Country such as Switzerland, Denmark, etc…those with very Progressive leanings. I’m NOT saying *screw you…if you don’t like it here, get the fuck out*.

    The difference is purely semantical; the sentiment is functionally identical.

    @ MAJ Mike: Got no problems with that.

    @ McThag: I never said the improper forms were used for unjustly granting the state of North Carolina this idiotic power. I am saying the people who did allow the state to take that power are morons and bigots, and this entire thing is a gorramed waste of time.

    @ Rob Crawford: So based on nothing more than an assumption that some people might misappropriate their rights as a springboard to unjustly and inappropriately attack other people’s rights (an intrinsically wrong thing already), you are willing to deny all people those rights. Remind me again how that position is any different than that adopted by your average “gun control” extremist, aside from the specific rights in question?