Amendment One - Gay marriage now "Super" Illegal

[The Young Pioneer]

Surprised this isn't a topic yet. Aggravated to no end...I spent about 10 years of my childhood in NC and am ashamed.

As if gay marriage being illegal wasn't enough, NC back-asswards decided to amend the state Constitution to prevent the law from ever being changed.

Here's what's being voted on:


Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

Today was elections and it is already determined that it will pass. I suppose it's no surprise, since today was also the GOP electiosn so most people going out to vote today were against gays... :(

Only hope now is that it gets taken to court.

Fuck the Bible belt.

More info:

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)

[Le Penseur Libre]

so much nonsense... we are in 2012 and people still have problems with Gay...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have been covering the topic steadily in my Queer News thread.

But yeah, I am convinced that the only way Queers in such reactionary areas are going to gain civil rights is after a progressive revolution scraps the entire old constitution.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

:glare: Are you fucking kidding me? I didn't even know they could do something like that.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is rather absurd and I think anyone can see this wouldn't make basic fucking civil rights reforms impossible. This is more a slap in the face than anything else. I also think the idea of needing the states approval of your life is ridiculous and the only real reason for reform is for basic companion shit like medical issues, wills, and things like that. This makes absolutely no sense.

pR9gyloyOjM

^basic rights, like it or not, gays well be together regardless of whether state or religion "condone," it or not which means without atileast some sort of civil union recognized program where shit like this doesn't happen. WTF

[Koba Junior]

Marital union opens up a lot of very important doors for families. What is there to be gained by locking those doors to same-sex partners? Why is there so much fear that the expansion of the concept of family to include same-sex partners will somehow cause civilization to collapse?

[BE_]

This is fucked up.

[Doflamingo]

this is just... what?

Only in Amurikkka

[Igor]

Only in Amurikkka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

really?

[jookyle]

They're really trying to instigate revolution, aren't they?

[names_r_hard]

The last time North Carolina amended their constitution with regards to marriage was in 1875 ... you can guess what they were banning.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I hope that in the generations to come, these ancient, senseless, inhumane ideas and prejudices will be nothing more than a memory (along with 'sun revolves around the earth' and 'digital watches are cool')

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

The oppression of one demographic, is an oppression to all! As being an ethnic minority in this country, I feel for the LGBT community. Everyone should protest North Carolina, and let those who passed the law know of their bigotry and oppression.

[thriller]

Isn't that in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the US Constitution? Maybe not. Either way, as the OP said 'Fuck the Bible Belt.'

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I hope that in the generations to come, these ancient, senseless, inhumane ideas and prejudices will be nothing more than a memory (along with 'sun revolves around the earth' and 'digital watches are cool')

So as long the generation before teaches the next their bigotries progress will never be attained;not until activists rally around a world changing dynamic.

[Psy]

What is even the point of marriage? Why do we need a church or a state to recognize a relationship? I can't see a workers state even dealing with marriage as it would come down to the workers state not giving a shit who is sleeping with who. I find it hypocritical that conservative wing of the US capitalist class says they want the bourgeoisie state out of our lives while pushing the bourgeoisie state in our bed rooms, they state the state can do not right but give the same state the power to decide who can be a legal couple.

[Zulu]

What is even the point of marriage? Why do we need a church or a state to recognize a relationship? I can't see a workers state even dealing with marriage as it would come down to the workers state not giving a shit who is sleeping with who. I find it hypocritical that conservative wing of the US capitalist class says they want the bourgeoisie state out of our lives while pushing the bourgeoisie state in our bed rooms, they state the state can do not right but give the same state the power to decide who can be a legal couple.
That's right. The proponents of the N.C. amendment say they're "not anti-gay, but pro-marriage"... Well, communists should be the opposite of that: "not pro-gay, but anti-marriage".

A modern socialist state should completely cancel any legal recognition of marital status. Every person must be free to sleep with whomever they want and most importantly not to sleep with those they don't want, even though they might have slept with them the night before. If some people still want to bind themselves by some religious or social custom, then fine, but that's their private affair. Public child rearing must get extensive state sponsorship, and it must become completely public in the future, but at first for some period of time biological mothers (and only they) should be allowed to retain full custody of their newborns, if they so wish. But no adoptions.

However, in a bourgeois state, which we have everywhere at present, everything that goes against the traditional "family values" is good, so let them have their gay marriage actually.

[Mather]

A modern socialist state should completely cancel any legal recognition of marital status.

What about provisions like visitation rights when your husband/wife is in hospital? Marriage does give legal protections in cases like this.



Public child rearing must get extensive state sponsorship, and it must become completely public in the future, but at first for some period of time biological mothers (and only they) should be allowed to retain full custody of their newborns, if they so wish. But no adoptions.



Why?

Who are you to tell people when and how they can have children?

And what is your problem with adoption?

Not only is your proposal authoritarian but so stupidly thought out as to be (thankfully) unworkable.

[Left Leanings]

Fuck the Bible belt.


I have been covering the topic steadily in my Queer News thread.

But yeah, I am convinced that the only way Queers in such reactionary areas are going to gain civil rights is after a progressive revolution scraps the entire old constitution.

My sentiments exactly :)

[Zav]

Marital union opens up a lot of very important doors for families. What is there to be gained by locking those doors to same-sex partners? Why is there so much fear that the expansion of the concept of family to include same-sex partners will somehow cause civilization to collapse?
According to Freud and Kinsey we're mostly all bisexual. A lot of people are in denial.

[Rafiq]

According to Freud and Kinsey we're mostly all bisexual. A lot of people are in denial.

This is a loose explanation.

In short, those (Social Conservativists) fear Homosexuality because in there eyes, it poses a threat to the Bourgeois Family structure. To them, it is an abomination of such, and undermines the values that it cherishes so heavily. I don't buy into the "Religious" aspect of it, because the Bourgeois family structure is something relatively new (Past 200 years).

The Social Liberalists, on the other hand, feel Homosexuality can be integrated within the Bourgeois Family structure, and therefore support it.

[gorillafuck]

But yeah, I am convinced that the only way Queers in such reactionary areas are going to gain civil rights is after a progressive revolution scraps the entire old constitution.a "progressive revolution"? progressive as in?:confused:


According to Freud and Kinsey we're mostly all bisexual. A lot of people are in denial.so, in your opinion, gay people who are not attracted to the opposite sex are just in denial that they have heterosexual thoughts?

[Psy]

What about provisions like visitation rights when your husband/wife is in hospital? Marriage does give legal protections in cases like this.

Just have a register, the injured party previously filled a form allowing the following has visitation rights so hospital staff allow those people in because on the list that the injured signed off before they went to the hospital.

This way when someone says they want a person to be able to visit if they are in the hospital the system just allows them through no questions asked because their on the list and hospital staff having real work to do rather then worrying about the relationship visitors have to injured.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

a "progressive revolution"? progressive as in?:confused:

A revolution which claims to forge a new identity among the people or a socialist one.

[gorillafuck]

A revolution which claims to forge a new identity among the people or a socialist one."or"? as in, a capitalist revolution is acceptable as long as it claims create a new identity, or a socialist revolution? what new identity?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

"or"? as in, a capitalist revolution is acceptable as long as it claims create a new identity, or a socialist revolution? what new identity?

I wouldn't say a capitalist one is acceptable but if your goal is to eradicate the old constitution than a progressive bourgeois one would do the trick. Of course it would be more preferable to have a socialist one, a progressive bourgeois one might have the ability to be hijacked, but these things take time and one has to work in whatever environment comes up.

[Zulu]

What about provisions like visitation rights when your husband/wife is in hospital? Marriage does give legal protections in cases like this.
You mean there are restrictions on visitations by a non-spouse?



Who are you to tell people when and how they can have children?

Somebody on a quest against capitalism and private property.





And what is your problem with adoption?

It's pointless. Since the socialist state will favor those children who've been reared in the public system, being an orphan will be an advantage.

[Zav]

so, in your opinion, gay people who are not attracted to the opposite sex are just in denial that they have heterosexual thoughts?
No! Not at all. I (and they) said that most people were bisexual, not everyone. The statistics are fuzzy, and I don't know if I recall them precisely, but supposedly 20% of humans are monosexual, evenly split between heteros and homos.

[Hexen]

so much nonsense... we are in 2012 and people still have problems with Gay...

Doesn't matter which year and people need to abandon the "Year= Progress" paradigm. The main problem here is that Christianity is deeply rooted in US society as if it's actually the core foundation of it (hence why US society shuns on and censors nudity & sexuality while worships violence & destruction in the other hand and the legitimacy of Christianity in the media is never questioned).

Also on the subject of Marriage itself, it's a another manifestation of property which goes against communist ideals.

[Fawkes]

No! Not at all. I (and they) said that most people were bisexual, not everyone. The statistics are fuzzy, and I don't know if I recall them precisely, but supposedly 20% of humans are monosexual, evenly split between heteros and homos.

That's not really how it works.

Human sexuality is an incredibly complex thing. Every person's sexuality is unique. It's not only a matter of the genitals of the people you're attracted to, it's every other physical characteristic you can imagine, not to mention what it is you like doing, where you like doing it, how you like doing it, etc. Sexual identifiers such as "homo" and "hetero" are not ahistorical. For example, in ancient Greece, the division was not based on who you were attracted to, but what you did with them (penetrated vs. penetrator). Further, sexuality is not static, it's constantly morphing in response to social conditioning.

[Hexen]

That's not really how it works.

Human sexuality is an incredibly complex thing. Every person's sexuality is unique. It's not only a matter of the genitals of the people you're attracted to, it's every other physical characteristic you can imagine, not to mention what it is you like doing, where you like doing it, how you like doing it, etc. Sexual identifiers such as "homo" and "hetero" are not ahistorical. For example, in ancient Greece, the division was not based on who you were attracted to, but what you did with them (penetrated vs. penetrator). Further, sexuality is not static, it's constantly morphing in response to social conditioning.

Well actually another thing too, we need to also abandon the sex categorization of "Homosexual", "Bisexual", "Heterosexual", etc which is actually a modern era invention while reality is more complex which sexuality is just sexuality.

[Yazman]

Well actually another thing too, we need to also abandon the sex categorization of "Homosexual", "Bisexual", "Heterosexual", etc which is actually a modern era invention while reality is more complex which sexuality is just sexuality.

imo it's not any of the state's business to consider a person's sexual orientation is. I also don't think it's our job to decide what a person's sexual orientation is. If somebody considers themselves to be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc then let them. It's none of your business, it's none of my business, it's none of anybody's business but that persons, the way I see it.

Academic discussion is fine but we shouldn't be dictating to anybody what their sexual orientation is.

As far as marriage goes, I don't think it should be recognised by the state in its religious capacity. I see no problem with it though, or with allowing anybody to marry anybody else. I have yet to see anybody present me with a convincing argument on why marriage should be completely abandoned.

The same goes for family structures to be honest, and while I'm on that topic - How is the notion of the family bourgeois? It is my understanding that while the size of what is considered to be family varies, the basic concept of a family existed well before capitalism, and before even currency itself. I can't really see how you can call the "family" bourgeois, or what is even bad about it. Why should we dictate to people who they will and will not live with? Furthermore, why the hell should we be trying to separate parents from their children (Whether the parents are adoptive, or a same-sex couple, or a single parent, heterosexual couple, etc)?

[Mather]

You mean there are restrictions on visitations by a non-spouse?



Yes. The rules vary from country to country but all health systems will have rules concerning visistation rights.

There are also other issues such as the patient's spouse or relatives having power of attorney to enact the patient's wishes should they fall to ill to make their own decisions.



Somebody on a quest against capitalism and private property.



Given that both the family and parenting predates capitalism and money your quest misses the target completely. Capitalism is built upon the control that the ruling class has over the means of production and their monopoly of force via the state and their armed agencies (military and police).

That and not how humans reproduce is what sustains the capitalist system.


It's pointless.

According to your own opinion.

Go and ask someone who has been adopted and given the chance to have a loving family as opposed to a life in the care system what hey think of your opinion!



Since the socialist state will favor those children who've been reared in the public system, being an orphan will be an advantage.


Nice, state mandated bigotry and enforced social discrimination against people who where 'born and raised the wrong way'.

That and the fact that if a real working class revolution takes place, the state will be utterly destroyed and thrown into the trashcan of history where it belongs.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That's not really how it works.

Evidence,that scientific stuff, says otherwise.


Human sexuality is an incredibly complex thing. Every person's sexuality is unique. It's not only a matter of the genitals of the people you're attracted to, it's every other physical characteristic you can imagine, not to mention what it is you like doing, where you like doing it, how you like doing it, etc. Sexual identifiers such as "homo" and "hetero" are not ahistorical. For example, in ancient Greece, the division was not based on who you were attracted to, but what you did with them (penetrated vs. penetrator). Further, sexuality is not static, it's constantly morphing in response to social conditioning.

Cool story bro, have any proof to back up such wild allegations? Anything besides anecdotal stories?

[Zav]

That's not really how it works.

Human sexuality is an incredibly complex thing. Every person's sexuality is unique. It's not only a matter of the genitals of the people you're attracted to, it's every other physical characteristic you can imagine, not to mention what it is you like doing, where you like doing it, how you like doing it, etc. Sexual identifiers such as "homo" and "hetero" are not ahistorical. For example, in ancient Greece, the division was not based on who you were attracted to, but what you did with them (penetrated vs. penetrator). Further, sexuality is not static, it's constantly morphing in response to social conditioning.
No one knows this stuff more than I do. Seriously. Presently, however, 'bisexual', 'heterosexual', 'homosexual', and a trillion others are workable terms to quickly describe certain regions of the sexual spectra.
If I were to describe my sexuality in full, it would fill volumes and I haven't even discovered all of it yet. In general, "kinky-as-fuck polyamorous pansexual" will suffice for me.


Evidence, that scientific stuff, says otherwise.

Cool story bro, have any proof to back up such wild allegations? Anything besides anecdotal stories?
Nobody goes from straight to gay and back again as far as I know of, but there are people whose sexuality is somewhat fluid, like myself. What I like and don't like shift a bit. Most people have sexual mood swings, and mine are longer. For instance, I'm in a hunk phase at the moment, and a few months ago I was only interested in androgens. Anyway, what was meant by the post was that what is acceptable and not in a given time and place affect what sexualities are expressed. In ancient Greece, bisexuality and homosexuality were common because the culture accepted it. It's a case of cultural suppression really, not a nurture argument.

[seventeethdecember2016]

This isn't too dissimilar from this.

Interracial Marriagehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/US_miscegenation.svg

U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:

clear- No anti-miscegenation laws passed
green- Before 1887
yellow- 1948 to 1967
red- 12 June 1967


Not surprisingly, the same states are opposing Gay Marriage as those that were opposing Interracial Marriage.

[Yazman]

You forgot to give us a legend for that diagram. How are we supposed to know which colours mean what?

[seventeethdecember2016]

You forgot to give us a legend for that diagram. How are we supposed to know which colours mean what?
I added one as you were typing.

Note: I wrote them directly below the chart. They are represented as clear, green, yellow, and red.