This new CBS News poll is a good reminder that, when given the option of civil unions, only 38% of Americans support redefining marriage. This is similar to the Alliance Defense Fund's polling which found that 62% of Americans believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman:
19 Comments
North Carolina was *NOT* about defining "marriage" as "between a man and a woman".
North Carolina was about defining that same sex couples had no legal recognition whatsoever - something that only has 33% support - as per the very poll you are presenting.
Good thing people like you are actively opposed to civil unions as well. Makes things easier.
Keep going in this direction of SSM because they love one another. I love my dog, cat, horse, etc. so before long I can marry one of them right????? Same concept.
gay gay gay
The NC marriage measure was approved as affirming the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. Society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.
The choice to form a nonmarital arrangement is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
Hi Chairm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the wording of NC's amendment stated that no "non-marital arrangements" would be acknowledged or protected by the State.
That is a false understanding, Michael C., promoted by the opponents of marriage who promote SSM.
Carol,
if your dog, cat or horse can give legal consent, you could marry them now (if they are of the opposite sex). But, please, quit wasting everyone's time with such ridiculous comments.
LOL, only NOM can twist numbers like it does. The poll shows 62% of people support recognition of same sex unions, a far cry from the 78% that were against interracial marriage when the SCOTUS declared the ban unconstitutional. But the main thing is - for those under 45, 53% support full marriage equality for same sex couples. It is ONLY a matter of time.
Chairm, is there any private contract that allows for joint tax filing? ...or non taxable inheritance ...hospital visitation or rights of surviving spouses? Is civil law pertaining to custody nullified by a private contract? What about applying for a family fishing license? Health insurance? ...life insurance? The NC amendment goes beyond "preserving" marriage by barring recognition of any domestic union outside of marriage.
So does that mean most Americans are bigots even after full protection under the law has been given but refuse to relinquish the title of Marriage?
Michael C,
Your previous comment stands as a false understanding.
The state marriage amendment does not mean that non-marital arrangements can't be acknowledged; it does not mean that such arrangements can't be unprotected.
Perhaps you oppose the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage.
If so, then, you will have some explaining to do to support the notion of a distinction between SSM and the rest of nonmarriage.
Hi Chairm. From my understanding, the NC amendment prohibits the state from allowing gay couples to participate in marriage. It ALSO prohibits the state from creating civil unions that would allow gay couples some of the protections and responsibilities that marriage provides. Non-marital private contracts do not provide sufficient protections for families because they do not usurp common law in regards to (a lack of) relationship and/or familial status. I absolutely do not oppose the distinction between marriage and non-marriage. Marriage is for loving couples and families, while non-marriage (private contracts) is for transactional relationships.
Same gender "marriage" has been rejected by 32 states. Whereas "Civil Union" bans have only been rejected by 2 states (Arizona in 2006, Washington in 2009). Maybe California, New York and Illinois can allow samesex marriage by another name (cos thats what it is) but 62% of North Carolinians disagree. Plus, dont Great Britain, Denmark, France and Finland prove that civil unions arent good enough for homo activists?
"NC amendment prohibits the state from allowing gay couples to participate in marriage."
Just for the record, if that "gay couple" consists of one man and one woman, they can marry, even if both claim to be "gay." Their gay political affiliation is not a determining factor in their eligibility for marriage.
#10 Michael,
Why don't you create a contract that covers all these things together and quit trying to redefine something you can't attain. Maybe you'll make a pile of money.
DoE, yes, a "gay couple" consisting of one man and one woman can marry. Thank you for that.
Hi, leehawks. No private contract can achieve what marriage can. Private contracts are between two individuals while marriage is a contract between a couple and the government. It is not possible to create a private contract that contradicts state and federal law. The things I listed can only be obtained with a contract between individuals and the government.
Michael C,
You said: "From my understanding, the NC amendment prohibits the state from allowing gay couples to participate in marriage."
No, it does not prohibit couples based on gayness. There is a wide range of types of relationships that are ineligible and most of that range is not gaycentric.
Whence did you garner your misunderstanding of the NC marriage amendment?
No proposed civil union law has a gayness criterion for eligiblity. Why would it? How could it?
_ _ _
Michael C said:
"Non-marital private contracts do not provide sufficient protections for families because they do not usurp common law in regards to (a lack of) relationship and/or familial status."
Familial status? You mean between two men, for instance?
The existence of provisions for reciprocal beneficiaries does not denote a merely private contract.
Nonetheless, the protections you favor for the nonmarriage category are available through use of private contract.
The mere presence of common law and statutory distinctions between marriage and nonmarriage do not justify usurping the preference for marriage.
If you meant a relationship between a man and another man's child, then, you might turn to adoption law instead. Even at that, there is no gay basis nor a same-sex sexualized basis for eligiblity to adopt children.
Why would there be? How could there be?