Yawn .... first the UK example doesn't apply because the constitution, federal system, etc are so different. Now the Australian example doesn't apply because even though the constitution and federal system are similar now its the "situation" that's so different. What's the next excuse?
My comment on "the GLF and large men in skirts" had nothing to do with current gay activists. Things get even more boring when you quote me out of context. My point was that "If you looked outside the US of A you might realise that the rest of the western world has moved on since the days of the GLF and large men in skirts". I could have added that that was how many at that time saw "gay rights" just as they saw women in trousers burning their bras as typifying "women's rights", but I didn't think it was necessary. As I've said elsewhere, if you're still stuck in that era that's your problem, not mine.
0
North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Constitutionally
Started by Jingthing, 2012-05-10 01:29
|
36 replies to this topic
#27
Ijustwannateach
Star Member Posted 2012-05-15 00:03:27
I'm going to jump in here, again to stop the bickering, and declare both of you off-topic. This is neither about America in general nor is about Australian law. Please keep this topic centered on North Carolina with tangents limited- if absolutely necessary and somehow relevant to NC- to the US. If you want to go back to a full scale discussion of international gay marriage, please resurrect one of the previous threads if you have anything new to say.
#28
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-05-15 00:07:21
Fine with me. Anyway, its sad that NC has rejected both gay marriages AND gay civil unions. That makes the ENTIRE SOUTHERN USA a gay marriage free zone. NC is among the more "liberal" states in the south and this is what they do.
#29
Ijustwannateach
Star Member Posted 2012-05-15 00:19:15
^It will be interesting to see how this 'rewards' them economically over time.
#30
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-05-15 00:27:41
It will be interesting to see how NC votes in the prez. election. Last time they went Obama and that was major. This time there seems to no hope, but given that very few people vote gay rights issues as a top issue in presidential races, maybe it's still possible.
#31
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-05-15 16:22:18
Here's some fun dish.
The democratic governor of N.C. disses her own state for this bigoted measure (which bans recognition of BOTH same sex marriages AND same sex civil unions) by dissing stereotypically super redneck state, Mississippi. (She's not running for reelection.  )Of course, in the fullness of history, these issues with redneck states (so MANY of them!) and their anti-gay state constitution measures will amount to NOTHING. That is because in the USA (I cannot speak for Australia  ) this gay marriage issue will ultimately be resolved (in our favor) at the federal, national, constitutional level. Trumping all the Mississippis and North Carolinas.http://www.slate.com...tic_issue_.html Quote The current system is unsustainable. Just as our country couldn’t go on with a mix of free states and slave states, we cannot continue with this jumble of equal marriage states and discriminatory states. Recognizing a federal constitutional right is the only, and the best, method to put this issue to rest. Edited by Jingthing, 2012-05-15 16:34:12. #32
LeCharivari
Senior Member Posted 2012-05-15 22:09:44
"ultimately" North Carolina and the USA will become part of a black hole (along with the rest of the world); the "gay marriage issue" there may be resolved first, but neither event appears to be on the horizon.
#33
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-05-16 14:56:06
"ultimately" North Carolina and the USA will become part of a black hole (along with the rest of the world); the "gay marriage issue" there may be resolved first, but neither event appears to be on the horizon. I know you can't help being sarcastic and dismissive of the American gay civil rights struggle. I find it bizarre and hostile, and only you know what's in your heart. But if you want to worry about a country that is never going to see gay civil rights, worry about countries like Iran, not the good old USA. We're on path as we have always been towards more justice based on our CONSTITUTIONAL principles. If you're actually interested in how the USA is different (which I doubt) then perhaps you should read up on the history of how American women won the right to vote. And how LONG it took. Would they have won quicker if they had demanded 2/3 the vote?  I also realize you can't help but try to sell the simplistic myth (that interestingly you never hear from Americans) that right now we would have legal same sex civil unions nationwide with all the federal implications as actual marriage if the word marriage had never been brought up. Enjoy the fantasy. It's not real. Edited by Jingthing, 2012-05-16 15:00:39. #34
LeCharivari
Senior Member Posted 2012-05-16 21:18:40
I'm going to jump in here, again to stop the bickering, and declare both of you off-topic. This is neither about America in general nor is about Australian law. Please keep this topic centered on North Carolina with tangents limited- if absolutely necessary and somehow relevant to NC- to the US. If you want to go back to a full scale discussion of international gay marriage, please resurrect one of the previous threads if you have anything new to say. Apparently this wasn't "fine" with you after all. To avoid going off at a tangent I have opened a new thread on the subject. #35
LeCharivari
Senior Member Posted 2012-05-16 22:26:33
In hindsight my post above may have been unclear - while the quote was from IJWT (and I hope I have respected it) my comment was aimed at JT (the "you" I referred to). Sorry if it may have appeared I was taking any issue with you, IJWT,
#36
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-05-19 02:19:41
On the topic of U.S. state marriage laws (the incredible messy hodgepodge that it is), some big news from the state of MARYLAND today.
The first gay DIVORCE in the state's history was officially recognized legally in Maryland!  Fantastic event considering Maryland doesn't yet have legal state same sex marriage. (The original marriage happened in California ... when it was legal there.) http://www.washingto...o1YU_story.html Quote The court agreed, finding that the parties’ same-sex marriage is not “repugnant” to Maryland “public policy,” the bar it would have to reach in order for the couple to be legally turned away for a divorce. Of course such momentous progress for gay civil rights as the right to DIVORCE  would not have been in possible in the MANY U.S. states including North Carolina that by state constitution do not recognize the same sex marriages of any other state (in NC's case, they don't recognize same sex CIVIL UNIONS either).
Edited by Jingthing, 2012-05-19 02:20:33. #37
arick
Advanced Member Posted 37 minutes ago
Thank god I moved 20 years ago to the UK and not America. Entered my civil partnership and have partner moving to the UK with me and I am not a UK citizen just a permanent resident. We can now look at moving to Canada. how things have changed over the years. leaving America in the dark.
|
Sponsored by ... |
