I have always had the impression that lawyers, Rabbis, and Conservative Christians had a great respect for the text. Those three people looked carefully at the words that were written in the document. The Lawyers wanted to check the small print of the contract because words matter. Rabbis and Conservative Christians wanted to find and know exact language of the text. What did Moses say? What did Jesus exactly say?
Unfortunately, that particular skill set has been abandoned when it comes to the current constitutional amendment before the voters of North Carolina. The Lawyers and the Conservative preachers have ignored the language in the bill and have been discussing matters that are not even a concern of the amendment.
The Amendment is called. The Defense of Marriage Amendment, but the amendment does not deal with anything concerning marriage. Conservative preachers are claiming that the Homosexual community is attempting to redefine marriage and this amendment will prevent that. They have not paid much attention to the text.
The Amendment does not deal with marriage. The law in North Carolina is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. The union of two different sexes. That is not under attack nor is anybody trying to change that in this amendment. That issue is not even under discussion in the Amendment. The Amendment will ban SAME SEX UNIONS.
The Homosexual community would like to be able to have the same legal advantages as Heterosexual couples. They would like their partners to be admitted to the hospital to visit when the hospital says only family and excludes the same sex partner. They would like to be able to have their partners included in the health benefits that are granted to heterosexual couples. When there is a death in a homosexual couple the surviving partner would like to be able to inherit the property they have acquired together the same way that a wife, by law, inherits property even without a will.
The Amendment would ban SAME SEX UNIONS and prevent Homosexual couples from enjoying these benefits. There is no attack upon the family as Homosexual couples desire to be able to be considered openly as a family. Their children acknowledged by both partners. Schools, Clubs and other agencies being able to accept the decisions of both partners in this relationship. The desire of SAME SEX COUPLES to be treated with the same legal rights as other couples is a justice issue. It does nothing to diminish or attack the institution of marriage.
In this matter there would be great benefit if one would stick to the text.
So what you’re saying Rick is that … Except for the name, SAME SEX UNIONS should have the exact same benefits as a MARRIAGE between a man and a woman.
For clarification purposes: From any legal perspective that position is tantamount to agreeing that SAME SEX UNIONS are MARRIAGES? Most believe that such a position diminishes the sanctity/meaning/value of the institution of marriage. I am quite sure that is the point of the amendment.
Also, since you brought up the scriptures to support your position (quite histerical), why didn’t you include what they say about SAME SEX UNIONS.
Can’t “Same sex unions” be legal agreements between 2 people without “marriage”?
Let’s stop with the semantics–a church ceremony with all the traditional trappings– is a wedding–or would look for all the world a same sex marriage.
My point exactly prudence.
So the Supreme Court said that a Corporation gets all the same rights as an individual, but do you think they are the same thing. Just because they get the same rights would not make them the same. Marriage will be between a man and a woman, and a same sex couple will be different because it will be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. They will not be the same.
So now you try compare an inanimate thing called a corporation to a a living being. Wow!
Gary, I did not do that… the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals before the Law. That is how all these super Pacs came into being. And what I am saying is that even if they do get the same legal rights they are not the same. Same sex unions and marriages could have the same legal rights and not be the same.
The recent Supreme Court ruling did not say/rule “that corporations have the same rights as individuals before the Law.” (emphasis on the “period”). It was very specific to campaign finance … a single issue. So to use the decision to justify a broad equality (sameness) is deceptive (a partial truth).
But interestingly, have you noticed that the politicians who pushed this campaign finance ruling now are regretting it? It never really was about the equality, it was about raising unlimited amounts of money to buy elections.
I am not a lawyer but a google of this question took me to Wikipedia and “The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819) recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) The Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Chief Justice said “The court does not wish to hear arguments on the question whether the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to thee corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. ”
As you point out the recent ruling only extended that broader concept of the l800’s to the political contribution question, but the principle has been established a long time.
So again they are given the same rights as person but are not persons, so giving the same rights to same sex unions would not make them marriages.